Ladies and Gentlemen, start your engines….and your Statement of Claims. This recent summary judgement dismissal suggests that an insurer’s delay in paying a benefit will trigger the commencement of the limitation clock, even where there has not been a “clear and unequivocal denial” of the disability claim.

The limitation period for disability benefits does not require a clear and unequivocal denial according to Justice Bale in his fact-specific decision on Summary Judgment motion.

Court of Appeal upholds trial decision apportioning liability 20% as against City Bus with right-of-way, which collided with a vehicle running a ran light.

Where a service provider relies on the waiver clause of a consumer agreement, and the consumer agreement contains terms that are void by operation of the Consumer Protection Act, the service provider bears the onus to persuade the court that it would be inequitable not to bind the Plaintiff to all or some portions of the consumer agreement, including its waiver clause.

Superior Court Judge invalidates waiver on the basis of violation of the Consumer Protection Act

This was a motion and cross-motion for summary judgment. The defendant driver sought to have the claim dismissed as against him and his numbered company. The Plaintiff’s insurer sought its release from the action under its unidentified coverage. In the alternative, it sought a ruling that the OPCF 44R was not triggered in the circumstances of this claim.

This was a motion by the Plaintiff to compel productions and attendance at examinations for discovery of an insurance broker after the matter had been set down for trial in which conflicting authorities were reviewed.