In Hayden v. Stevenson, Madam Justice Jane E. Ferguson of the Ontario Superior Court held that the Bill 198 amendments to the Insurance Act are a “codification of existing law” and in doing so, sided with Madam Justice Morissette in Nissan v. McNamee.
There has not been unanimity among the judiciary on this issue, as we have discussed in previous posts about Sherman v. Guckelsberger and Sabourin v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company. Those two cases marked a departure from Nissan v. McNamee, in that Justices Milanetti and Valin felt that the Bill 198 reforms had been meant to “tighten up” the Insurance Act threshold, applicable to motor vehicle claims. At least one other decision though, agreed with Justice Morissette’s view in Nissan: Rosypskye v. Stewart.
Hayden is the most recent case to have addressed the issue, but Justice Ferguson referred only to the Nissan case, not to Sherman or Sabourin. Thus, the question of the effect of the Bill 198 reforms remains unsettled.