KHODR & COBB: STATUTORY DEDUCTIBLE, AND PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST RATE, AND RULE 49 OFFERS, AND COSTS, OH MY!
On Sept. 19, 2017, Ontario insurers took home two big wins from the Court of Appeal. The judgments, from two separate cases collectively dubbed Khodr & Cobb, will result in significant changes to the damages side of MVA tort cases.
COULD YOU OWE A DUTY OF CARE TO SOMEONE THAT STEALS YOUR CAR?
When do people owe a duty of care to a thief that steals their car? In the recent Ontario Court of Appeal case J.J. v. C.C., 2016 ONCA 718 the Court dealt with just that question.
Explain Yourself: Evidence & Misnomer Motions
The plaintiff and counsel may have a lot of explaining to do on a misnomer motion. This burden was confirmed by the Divisional Court in Brown-Vidal v. Doe 2016 ONSC 4359, an appeal from the order of Master Haberman.
ANOTHER CASE ON THE NEW STATUTORY DEDUCTIBLE: CORBETT V. ODORICO
MARK COOMBS Student at Law The recent case Corbett v. Odorico, 2016 ONSC 1964, provides another decision on whether the new statutory deductible should be applied retroactively.
Due Diligence: A Principle, Not a Reason for Dismissing a Claim
Due diligence is not a separate basis for determining whether a limitation period has expired. So says the Ontario Court of Appeal in Fennell v. Deol 2016 ONCA 249, a recent decision arising out of a motor vehicle accident and a claim issued outside of the two-year limitation period.
WITH OR WITHOUT PERMISSION: VEHICLE OWNERS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE
By MARK COOMBS, Student at Law Be careful who you trust with your car keys. The older approach taken by the Court of Appeal in Newman and Newman v. Terdik, [1953] O.R. 1 (C.A.) gave owners a break by not making them vicariously liable where an operator drove outside the scope of the permission given, [...]
GET THAT GARBAGE OUTTA HERE: ONTARIO COURT OF APPEAL AFFIRMS TRIAL JUDGES AS ‘ROBUST GATEKEEPERS’ OF EXPERT EVIDENCE
In the face of the trend in litigation towards an ever greater reliance on expert evidence, the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Meady v Greyhound Canada Transportation Corp. 2015 ONCA 6 (“Meady”) upholding a trial judge’s decision to exclude the evidence of two of the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses on the grounds that their [...]
Substance Over Form – Whether a Defendant or Third Party: Renter Pays First
Where an automobile is leased or rented and involved in a motor vehicle accident, section 277(1.1) of the Insurance Act, sets out the order in which insurance policies are to respond. The section states that “the third party liability provisions of any available motor vehicle liability policies shall respond” in the following order: insurance available [...]
‘OTHER MATERIAL EVIDENCE’ OF INVOLVEMENT OF UNIDENTIFIED VEHICLE: FOR ONTARIO COURT, EVIDENCE OF OTHERNESS IS LESS MATERIAL
The recent Ontario Superior Court decision of Azzopardi v. John Doe and The Personal Insurance Company [“Azzopardi”] appears to to lower the threshold for the types of corroborative evidence that Ontario courts will accept when considering a party’s entitlement to under-insured coverage in accidents involving unidentified vehicles. Under-insured motorist coverage where an unidentified motorist is [...]