In Merino v ING Insurance Company of Canada, 2019 ONCA 326, the Court concluded that automobile insurers in Ontario do not have the option of unilaterally rescinding a contract of insurance ab initio under the common law as a result of an insured’s misrepresentation. Instead, they are bound by the statutory scheme created by the Insurance Act, the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act and the Statutory Conditions that spell out how to properly terminate a policy (15 day notice, during which time the policy remains in effect). To find otherwise would result in a lapse in coverage when an insured thought they had coverage, which would be contrary to the intention of automobile insurance scheme.
In Alectra Utilities Corporation v Solar Power Network Inc, 2019 ONCA 332, the Court denied a stay of enforcement pending the seeking of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Although there was a serious issue to be heard on the appeal in the event leave is granted, and the possibility of irreparable harm to the appellant in the event it could not recover payment from the respondent in the event the appeal was successful, the Court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent. The respondent was having liquidity problems and needed funds imminently to pay creditors. The risk of irreparable harm to the appellant was minimized by the fact that the respondent had assets that could be liquidated to repay the appellant. In addition, the appellant was worth billions, and the amount of the judgment ($14 million) was relatively small by comparison.
Other topics included another insurance dispute in the MVA context, deduction of collateral benefits in the MVA context, the distribution of assets between the general and limited partner in a limited partnership, medmal, sealing orders and commercial leases.
Please log in to read the full article.