(1) by adding Ms. Patterson in respect of the claims for conspiracy
and inducing breach of contract; (2) by adding the Way Family
Trust as pleaded; and (3) by allowing the proposed amendment to
para. 2(k) of the statement of claim.
 Following the hearing, the counsel advised that they had
come to an agreement regarding the costs of the appeal and
below. As the plaintiffs have been successful, they will have the
costs of the appeal fixed at $21,395.42 for fees, $4,728.83 for disbursements, plus HST, for which the defendants will be jointly
and severally liable. They shall have the costs of the motion
from the Way Family Trust in the amount of $12,000 for fees,
$382.32 for disbursements, plus HST, and from Ms. Patterson
in the amount of $14,000 for fees, $382.32 for disbursements,
Bruinsma v. Cresswell et al.
[Indexed as: Bruinsma v. Cresswell]
2012 ONSC 4440
Superior Court of Justice, Heeney J. August 1, 2012
Insurance — Automobile insurance — Uninsured automobile coverage
— Statutory condition 4(1) not applying to uninsured automobile coverage unless contract provides that it does.
Limitations — Insurance — Plaintiff suing uninsured driver and owner
of other vehicle for damages sustained in motor vehicle accident and
making claim against insurer of his own vehicle for uninsured automobile coverage — Insurer denying that plaintiff was entitled to uninsured
automobile coverage — Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund bringing
cross-claim in name of driver of other vehicle for declaration that plaintiff had uninsured automobile coverage — Fund’s right to seek recourse
against insurer of plaintiff’s vehicle not extinguished by s. 18 of Limitations Act, 2002 — That right remaining in full force and effect pursuant
to terms of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act — Limitations Act, 2002,
S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sch. B, s. 18 — Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, R.S.O.
1990, c. M.41.
The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident. At the time, he was driving a vehicle owned by his girlfriend, which was insured by CAA. The other vehicle involved in the accident was not insured. The plaintiff sued the owner and
driver of that vehicle for damages for personal injuries, and also claimed against
CAA for uninsured automobile coverage. CAA defended that claim on the basis
that the plaintiff was disentitled to uninsured automobile coverage because he
was disqualified from driving at the time of the accident. The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (the “fund”) brought a cross-claim in the name of the driver of
the other vehicle for a declaration that the plaintiff had uninsured automobile