THE COURT is the online resource for debate & data about the Supreme Court of Canada.*

Archive For Entries On Insurance

Gyorffy v Drury: Big Win or Big Chill for Plaintiffs?

Writing for the Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) in Gyorffy v Drury, 2015 ONCA 31, Justice Laskin upheld an award of non-pecuniary damages for injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident (“MVA”). The case hinged upon whether the Plaintiff was permitted to corroborate his own physician’s evidence on his changed functioning after the accident. At trial, it was determined […]

Matheson v Lewis: Farm ATVs Require Insurance

The recent Ontario Court of Appeal (“ONCA”) decision in Matheson v Lewis, 2014 ONCA 542 [Matheson], held that an unmodified all-terrain vehicle (“ATV”) owned by a farmer and used in farm operations does not fall within the Highway Traffic Act, RSO 1990, c H.8 (“HTA”) exception for “self-propelled implement of husbandry”, and must be insured while […]

Kozel v The Personal Insurance Company: Failure to Renew a Driver’s License, a Car Crash, and Relief from Forfeiture

In Kozel v The Personal Insurance Company, 2014 ONCA 130 [Kozel], a decision released on February 19, 2014, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the scope of relief from forfeiture pursuant to section 98 of the Courts of Justice Act, RSO 1990, c C.43 [CJA], in the context of an automobile insurance claim.

Financial Incentives and Efficiency Concerns: The Test for Catastrophic Impairment in Pastore v. Aviva Canada Inc.

In Pastore v Aviva Canada Inc, 2012 ONCA 642, a unanimous Court of Appeal established a new, lower threshold for catastrophic impairment. The decision also permitted the inclusion of chronic pain in the assessment of mental disorder overturning an earlier Divisional Court decision.

Westmount (City) v Rossy: Faulting Quebec’s No-Fault Insurance Law

As the proverb goes, when a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, did it happen at all? When a tree hits a man while he is driving, and Quebec has a no-fault insurance law, then does that mean that, for civil liability purposes, it did not happen at […]

The Ontario Court of Appeal Grants Amputee up to $1M of Benefit: Kusnierz v Economical Mutual Insurance Company

On Christmas Eve in 2001, a car crash left Robert Kusnierz with numerous injuries, the most serious of which required the amputation of his left leg below the knee. Kusnierz sues his insurer, Economical Mutual Insurance Company, for a declaration that he sustained a “catastrophic impairment” under clause 2(1.1)(f) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule – […]

Gibbens v Co-operators Life Insurance Company: “Accident” Insurance and Injuries Resulting from Unprotected Sex

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) will release judgment in Gibbens v Co-operators Life Insurance Company, 2008 BCCA 153, an interesting case hinging on the proper interpretation of an insurance policy. I concede that issues surrounding insurance law may not seem terribly interesting at first rub, but the respondent’s extraordinary circumstances give rise to a […]

SCC Allows Proceedings in Multiple Jurisdictions, Leaves Problem of Multiple Judgments

Last Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) delivered their decision in Teck Cominco Metals v Lloyd’s Underwriter’s, 2009 SCC 11. The private international law decision dealt with Teck Cominco’s attempt to have proceedings in British Columbia stayed because of an assertion of jurisdiction over the same matter in a U.S. Court. In a unanimous decision […]

CN Rail v Royal and Sun Alliance: Faulty Insurance Not Faulty Design

On Friday November 21, 2008 the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) released its 4-3 judgment awarding the appellants $30 million in Canadian National Railway Co v Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Co of Canada, [2008] 3 SCR 453. This case involved a 14-year dispute between Canadian National Railway Co. (“CNR”) and its group of property […]

Tomasson v Attorney General of Canada: Reproduction and its Discontents

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) will render its judgment in the application for leave to appeal from Tomasson v Canada (Attorney General), 2007 FCA 265. At issue is whether the provisions of the Employment Insurance Act, SC 1996, c 23, which grant certain maternity benefits only to biological mothers, discriminate against adoptive mothers within […]