In this Divisional Court decision, a three-judge panel considered whether the applicant was entitled to Statutory Accident Benefits after being involved in an ATV accident while in British Columbia (“BC”).

Honest belief of valid insurance found despite cash and barter deal; lay witness testimony sufficient to show proof of economic loss.

Plaintiff’s 30.10 Wagg motion found to be premature where pleadings still open.

Appeals from the Orders of Tzimas J., and Mccarthy J., Ordering that liability waivers offended s. 7(1) and 9(3) of the Consumer Protection Act.

The Divisional Court provides guidance on the interpretation of s. 61 of the SABS.

Where trial counsel employs inflammatory and inappropriate language in their closing, a clear and strong jury charge may obviate the need for a mistrial. Further, where a party fails to provide a Rule 53 report in adherence with the Rules, that expert’s evidence will be limited in scope.