Ontario civil | Appeal
LEAVE TO APPEAL
Endorsement did not address criteria for when party should be added to proceeding
Plaintiff was involved in motor vehicle accident on June 9, 2009, in which she was injured. She sought entitlement to and recovery of long-term disability benefits from defendant insurer under insurance policy where she was insured. Defendant insurer denied those benefits alleging that plaintiff did not meet applicable test under its policy. Non-party insurer was plaintiff’s accident benefits insurer and had been paying her income replacement benefits arising from their acceptance that she was unable to return to work due to injuries she sustained in accident. Non-party insurer moved to be added as defendant on grounds that it was necessary party to action because it had interest in, and may be adversely affected by, outcome of action. Motion judge granted motion on Jan. 30, 2014. Defendant insurer sought leave to appeal order. Leave to appeal granted. Endorsement of motion judge did not satisfactorily address criteria for when party should be added to proceeding. It was not entirely clear how motion judge reached his decision, and while his decision was deserving of deference, because parties themselves were unable to conclude with certainty basis for decision, court was satisfied that decision was open to serious debate. Because of that, court found that there was good reason to doubt correctness of motion judge’s decision. Court was also satisfied that appeal raised matters of general importance.
Atwi v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Oct. 20, 2014, Ont. S.C.J., B.R. Warkentin J., File No. Ottawa 11-51297) 246 A.C.W.S. (3d) 11.
Endorsement did not address criteria for when party should be added to proceeding
Plaintiff was involved in motor vehicle accident on June 9, 2009, in which she was injured. She sought entitlement to and recovery of long-term disability benefits from defendant insurer under insurance policy where she was insured. Defendant insurer denied those benefits alleging that plaintiff did not meet applicable test under its policy. Non-party insurer was plaintiff’s accident benefits insurer and had been paying her income replacement benefits arising from their acceptance that she was unable to return to work due to injuries she sustained in accident. Non-party insurer moved to be added as defendant on grounds that it was necessary party to action because it had interest in, and may be adversely affected by, outcome of action. Motion judge granted motion on Jan. 30, 2014. Defendant insurer sought leave to appeal order. Leave to appeal granted. Endorsement of motion judge did not satisfactorily address criteria for when party should be added to proceeding. It was not entirely clear how motion judge reached his decision, and while his decision was deserving of deference, because parties themselves were unable to conclude with certainty basis for decision, court was satisfied that decision was open to serious debate. Because of that, court found that there was good reason to doubt correctness of motion judge’s decision. Court was also satisfied that appeal raised matters of general importance.
Atwi v. Manufacturers Life Insurance Co. (Oct. 20, 2014, Ont. S.C.J., B.R. Warkentin J., File No. Ottawa 11-51297) 246 A.C.W.S. (3d) 11.
