The Ontario Superior Court has again determined that the
statutory deductible, as enacted on August 1, 2015 by O. Reg.
221/15, applies retroactively to claims for non-pecuniary damages
awarded in motor vehicle tort claims.
Justice Charles Hackland of the Ontario Superior Court recently
determined that the adjusted deductible is applicable
to existing MVA-related tort general damages claims.
Corbett v. Odorico1 was argued on December 21,
2015 and, pursuant to the new regulation, the deductible applied
was determined to be $36,540. This figure represents a material
increase over the previous fixed deductible amount of $30,000 which
first applied in 2003. Justice Hackland's decision in
Corbett followed the earlier decision reached in
Vickers v. Palacious2 by his Honour Justice
Martin James who, in December 2015, had also determined that the
adjusted deductible would have retrospective application.
Though not addressed in Corbett, as of January 1, 2016,
the applicable deductible has now increased to $36,905.40, based
upon the indexation percentage published in accordance with s.
268.1(1) of the Insurance Act. The deductible is now
scheduled to reset annually going forwards.
In light of the decision reached in Cobb v. Long
Estate,3 wherein Justice Belch determined that the
new regulation is a matter of substantive law and cannot apply
retrospectively, it remains likely that the adjusted deductible
will require consideration from the Ontario Court of Appeal.
Under B.C.'s former and current Limitation Act, the limitation period for a Plaintiff's claim can be extended on the basis of a Defendant having acknowledged in writing some liability for the cause of action.
Automobile drivers, like fine wine, tend to get better with age. Older drivers can draw on a wealth of experience from their years on the road to assist them when faced by a variety of dangerous conditions.
The insurance industry will be interested in Ledcor Construction Ltd v. Northbridge Indemnity Insurance Co because of principles the Supreme Court of Canada applied to the "faulty workmanship" exclusion in a Builders' Risk policy.
For the first time in BC, a Court has decided that an insured is entitled to special costs, rather than the lower tariff costs, solely because they were successful in a coverage action against their insurer.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).