Injured in Ontario?
Get the Compensation You Deserve

An elderly plaintiff was injured on Highway 401 after an unidentified school bus spun out of control, triggering a chain-reaction collision. The court found that a vehicle losing control across two lanes is enough to raise an inference of negligence, allowing the plaintiff to pursue a claim against his own insurer under unidentified motorist coverage.

While rooted in a real estate dispute over outstanding closing deficiencies, this case highlights a principle central to personal injury law: winning depends on what you can prove and how clearly you can prove it. The court's analysis underscores the importance of thorough documentation, timelines, and evidence in establishing both fault and damages — the same standard that determines outcomes in injury and insurance claims.

In this family law matter, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed a motion to extend the time to appeal orders relating to divorce, property equalization, and spousal support, finding the proposed appeal lacked merit and largely repeated arguments already decided at trial. The case reinforces that courts will not grant procedural relief simply because a party is dissatisfied with an outcome — appeals must be grounded in substantive legal error, not unsubstantiated allegations.

A claimant challenged her insurer's attempt to limit her treatment under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), arguing her injuries required more extensive care. Aviva sought to bar her from the hearing entirely on a procedural technicality — a tactic commonly used by insurers to avoid addressing the merits of a claim. This case illustrates how insurance companies can use procedural hurdles to obstruct legitimate injury claims, making experienced legal representation essential.