CASES AND COMMENTARY


Guy v. Toronto (City), 2011 ONCA 689
When a segment of a laneway became a pedestrian walkway through its use by the public, it should have received the same attention from the municipality as a sidewalk designed for pedestrian use.  The municipality was held to be grossly negligent...



Tut v RBC General Insurance Co., 2011 ONCA 644
The Court of Appeal has endorsed a due diligence defence for the “not authorized by law to drive” exclusion contained in the Ontario standard automobile policy.  G2 drivers who drive with alcohol in their blood can avoid the exclusion and are entitled to coverage if they can show that, although their blood alcohol level was not zero, this occurred despite the exercise of due diligence on their part...


Zurich v. Ison T.H. Auto Sales, 2011 ONCA 663
An insured is in control of litigation until it has been fully indemnified for its insured and uninsured losses.  The insured can select counsel and control the action despite the preferences of its insurer with a large subrogated claim.  Where the insurer's interest is vastly disproportionate to the insured's interest, a court might exercise its discretion to give the insurer control over the litigation.  This circumstance can by modified by appropriate policy wordings...


Novice and young drivers beware
Novice and young drivers who take a “sip” of beer before driving void their automobile liability and collision insurance coverage. Other seemingly minor breaches of highway traffic rules can have the same effect. Few drivers, and even fewer of their parents, understand the devastating personal consequences that can flow from breaches of the graduated licencing provisions or, as of August 1, 2010, the provisions prohibiting young drivers from drinking.