This appeal concerned the nature of the notice an insurer must give to examine an applicant for accident benefits under oath. Section 33 (2) says the applicant “shall” submit to an examination under oath if requested. Section 33 (4) (3) requires an insurer to give the applicant advance notice of the “reason” for the examination. Relying on the latter, some applicants demanded their insurer provide reasons in the sense of a justification that they attend an examination under oath.

A recent LAT decision was overturned and the law regarding compliance with the notice requirement under section 44 (for insurers’ examinations) was clarified.

This is an Appeal from a Motion where Sun Life moves to dismiss the Plaintiff’s LTD Action on the ground that the Court does not have jurisdiction and that the proper forum is arbitration (LRBO) under the collective agreement.

Barrie jury returns $7 million verdict for young plaintiff in an action against school bus company.

The Court of Appeal held that the tort of battery against police officers was not discoverable until the plaintiff was acquitted of criminal charges of assault of the officers and resisting arrest, thereby extending the “appropriate means” aspect of discoverability until the date of his acquittal.

In motions to exclude one party from another party’s discovery, the onus is on the party seeking the exclusion order to demonstrate that there is a risk that evidence will be tailored.