|
Insurance - Auto - General. Botbyl v. Heartland Farm Mutual Inc.
In Botbyl v. Heartland Farm Mutual Inc. (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court allowed a LAT SABS appeal, here from a LAT reconsideration decision which overturned an initial decision "that granted the Insureds relief from forfeiture of their insurance policy under s. 129 of the Insurance Act".
The court notes that parts of the Insurance Act other than Part VI ['Automobile Insurance'] still apply to Part VI:The LAT has jurisdiction to apply sections of the Insurance Act that are not part of the SABS and that codify equitable remedies.
[50] In Akinyimide v. Economical Mutual Insurance Company, 2023 ONSC 5272, the Divisional Court dealt with whether the LAT had jurisdiction to apply s. 131 of the Insurance Act, which codifies the equitable doctrines of waiver and estoppel. The LAT had found that it could not apply s. 131 as the SABS are a complete code for resolving disputes between insureds and insurers, s. 131 is not part of the SABS and the LAT lacks the jurisdiction to award equitable remedies. The Divisional Court disagreed, finding that s. 280 of the Insurance Act did not oust the LAT’s jurisdiction to apply other sections of the Insurance Act such as s. 131. It also found that while the LAT had no inherent jurisdiction to award equitable relief, it could do so if that jurisdiction was granted to it by statute. Section 131 granted the LAT the jurisdiction to apply the equitable doctrines of estoppel and waiver.
[51] Akinyimide is a complete answer to the suggestion that s. 129 cannot be applied by the LAT because it does not appear in the SABS and because it codifies an equitable remedy. Section 129, like s. 131, appears in Part III of the Insurance Act, and s. 122 of the Insurance Act provides that Part III applies to every contract of insurance in Ontario, subject to three exceptions, none of which are automobile insurance policies under Part VI. If the legislature had intended to exempt policies under Part VI from the application of Part III, it would have said so explicitly. . Kolapully v. Myles
In Kolapully v. Myles (Ont CA, 2024) the Ontario Court of Appeal briefly summarizes the Ontario no-fault auto insurance regime:(a) The Governing Principles
[57] Before addressing the particulars of this issue, I set out some of the context and the governing principles. The system of compensation for injuries suffered in motor vehicle accidents in Ontario is a hybrid of no-fault insurance coverage and traditional tort law. In exchange for limits on the ability to sue for injuries, insured parties have access to no-fault benefits: Meyer v. Bright (1993), 1993 CanLII 3389 (ON CA), 15 O.R. (3d) 129 (C.A.), at para. 6. The statutory scheme aims at full compensation for an injured party whose injuries exceed the statutory threshold, like Ms. Kolapully. Such injured parties can sue for damages.
[58] The statutory scheme also aims to prevent double compensation. This is a bedrock governing principle that has been repeated throughout the case law, from Brown v. Bouwkamp (1976), 1976 CanLII 740 (ON CA), 12 O.R., (2d) 33, at para. 10, to Cadieux, at para. 17, where the court stated:These two forms of compensation – SABs and tort damages – are independent of one another. It is inevitable, however, that there will be overlap between the compensation provided to an accident victim by no-fault SABs and the award of damages to that person in a civil tort action. Section 267.8 of the Insurance Act contains provisions designed to address this overlap and to prevent double recovery. It reflects the principle that victims should be fairly compensated, but not over-compensated. Automobile insurers, who provide first-party benefits through SABs insurance, should not be required, when wearing their fault-based liability insurer hats, to compensate an accident victim twice for the same losses. . Co-Operators Insurance Company v. Bennett
In Co-Operators Insurance Company v. Bennett (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court cites authority for auto insurance law being a form of consumer legislation:[29] Moreover, the LAT’s interpretation is consistent with the consumer protection objective of insurance legislation: Smith v. Co-operators General Insurance Co. 2002 SCC 30 at para. 11. . Johnson v. Jevco
In Johnson v. Jevco (Div Ct, 2021) the Divisional Court set out some basics of auto insurance law in Ontario:[7] The appeal concerns the meaning and interpretation of the insurance contract (policy) entered into by the parties to this appeal. In Ontario, the owners and lessees of motor vehicles are required, by law not to operate or to permit a motor vehicle to be operated unless it is insured.[10] Insurance is a regulated industry. The Insurance Act contains provisions directed to “Insurance Contracts in Ontario”[11]and specifically to “Automobile Insurance”.[12] Under the Insurance Act the “Chief Executive Officer” (formerly the Superintendent of Financial Services) is authorized “to approve the form of standard policies containing insuring agreements…for use by insurers in general.”[13] The “Ontario Automobile Policy (OAP 1) Owner’s Policy” is a standard form that was approved by the Superintendent. When the Ontario Automobile Policy is combined with a completed and signed Application for Automobile Insurance and a Certificate of Automobile Insurance, a contract of insurance is created between the customer and the insurer.[14] ...
|
