The Limitation Period in False Arrest/Imprisonment Cases

A recent decision looks at when the limitation period begins to run in a false arrest/false imprisonment case, as well as the impact of a peace bond on a negligent investigation claim.

In E.B.F. (Litigation guardian of) v. Ontario, 2013 ONSC 2581 (S.C.J.), the plaintiff sued the Crown for false arrest, false imprisonment, breach of Charter rights and negligent investigation arising out of charges laid against him by the O.P.P in 2008.  The plaintiff's daughter alleged he had sexually assaulted her.  The charges were ultimately withdrawn in 2009 after the plaintiff agreed to enter into a peace bond.  The claim was issued in 2011.  The Crown brought a motion to strike the claim.  There were two issues for the Court to consider:

1.  Whether the limitation period began when the plaintiff was arrested or when the peace bond was entered into; and
2.  Whether the peace bond represented the charges being terminated in the plaintiff's favour, a precondition to being able to pursue a negligent investigation claim.

Justice Chiappetta held there was no reasonable cause of action against the Crown.  A claim for false arrest, false imprisonment or breach of Charter rights crystallizes on the date of arrest.  Although the plaintiff alleged he was unable to determine the arrest was wrongful until after receiving legal advice and the results of a private investigation, there was no persuasive evidence that the plaintiff suffered from any mental or psychiatric disorder that would have impacted his ability to understand the arrest, the charges and his belief of innocence.

The plaintiff argued that since the only conditions imposed by the peace bond were to keep the peace and be of good behaviour (as every other citizen is required to do), the proceedings terminated in his favour.  Justice Chiappetta held that the agreement to withdraw the charges in return for a peace bond represented a negotiated compromise, and was not a termination of proceedings in the plaintiff's favour.

Since the plaintiff's claim was issued beyond the limitation period and he failed to show the proceedings were terminated in his favour, the claim was dismissed.

Motion to Add Party Must be Served but not Heard Before Limitation Period Expires

When a plaintiff seeks to add a party defendant, must the motion be heard prior to the expiry of the limitation period?

According to Justice Edwards in Computer Enhancement Corporation v. J.C. Options, 2013 ONSC 4548 (S.C.J.), the motion must be served, but not necessarily heard, prior to the expiry of the limitation period.  Justice Edward held that the suggestion that a motion to add a party must be served, argued and a court order obtained prior to the expiry of the limitation period was "lacking in common sense".  There are lengthy delays in obtaining motion dates and the moving party is therefore "very much in the hands of the court" as to whether the motion can be argued and disposed of within the limitation period.

In making his decision, Justice Edwards followed the Divisional Court in Philippine v. Portugal, 2010 ONSC 956 (Div. Ct.), where the plaintiff was permitted to add a claim for conspiracy, and declined to follow Marks v. Ottawa, 2013 ONSC 1089 (S.C.J.) where the Court refused to permit the addition of a party where the motion had not been heard prior to the expiry of the limitation period.

Settlement Implies Release Will be Furnished

In most cases, parties are able to agree on the form of release when a settlement has been reached.  A recent case confirmed that there is an implied agreement to furnish a release, unless there is an express agreement to the contrary.

In OZ Optics Limited v. Timbercon Inc., 2013 ONSC 6439 (S.C.J.), the parties agreed on a settlement, but were unable to agree on the wording of a release.  Justice McNamara held that the case law is clear that where a settlement is reached, it is normally implied that an executed final released will be provided, unless there is an agreement otherwise.  In the circumstances, there was no express agreement not to furnish a release.  Justice McNamara held that the draft release prepared by the plaintiff was fair, reasonable and reflective of the agreement reached by the parties.

Happy Holidays

Happy holidays from the Ontario Insurance Law Blog.  We'll return in January with new posts.  All the best in 2014!

The Definition of "Dependency" Under the SABS

Does an adult child attempting to become self-supporting qualify as a "dependent" under the SABS? The answer may be "yes", depending on the person's circumstances at the time of the accident.

In State Farm v. Bunyan, 2013 ONSC 6670 (S.C.J.), Mr. Bunyan was a pedestrian who was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident.  He moved out of his mother's house after high school, lived with a girlfriend and had a child.  He moved twice to Alberta to find work, but came back to his live with his mother each time.  At the time of the accident he had $0.24 in his bank account and was covering his daily expenses with money from his mother.  He had problems with alcohol.  Corbett J. was satisfied that Mr. Bunyan would have continued relying on his mother's support until she refused help or he obtained help with his alcohol issues.

Corbett J. held that "dependency" must be assessed looking at four factors:

1.  Amount of dependency;
2.  Duration of dependency;
3.  Financial or other needs of the alleged dependent; and
4.  The ability of the alleged dependent to be self-supporting.

Corbett J. held that Mr. Bunyan was principally dependent on his mother: although he was seeking to become self-supporting, more than half of his day-to-day expenses were covered by his mother, he had not found permanent accommodation, had not obtained transportation, had not established that he could keep steady employment, was not paying child support, had no savings, and had problems with alcohol.  He therefore qualified as an "insured person" under his mother's policy.

The Standard of Care in Parking Lots

The Divisional Court recently considered an appeal involving the standard of care in a parking lot.  The primary conclusion is that the Highway Traffic Act does not generally apply to parking lots.

In Bossio v. Ramsahoye, 2013 ONSC 6878 (Div. Ct.), the parties were in a motor vehicle accident in a GO Train station parking lot.  The plaintiff was driving northbound in the centre lane of the parking lot, and the defendant was westbound in one of several exit lanes.  The trial judge's charge referred to the location of the accident as "a completely neutral intersection". The jury dismissed the action and the plaintiff appealed.

The plaintiff alleged that the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury that the common law duties of drivers approaching an uncontrolled intersection set out in the Highway Traffic Act would apply.  The defendant submitted that:

47. The absence of any reference to the Highway Traffic Act at first instance was not inadvertent. The Highway Traffic Act generally has no application to private parking lots. While the Act and the rules of road therein have been found to apply to certain peculiar parking lot situations (i.e. where the parking lot has a dual function as a thoroughfare, or where the Act provision at issue does not use the word “highway” or any word that incorporates the word “highway in its definition), this was not the case at hand and there was never any dispute as between the parties on this point.

48. The authority cited by the Plaintiff does not support her assertion that there are duties at common law equivalent to those found in the Highway Traffic Act, applicable where the Act is silent. At most, the “rules of the road” are distillations of what amounts to reasonable care and offer guidance to situations not covered by the Act.

49. Had the Highway Traffic Act applied, this would have been to the benefit of the Defendant, not the Plaintiff. Under the rules of the road, and specifically subsection 135(3) of the Act, when two vehicles enter an uncontrolled intersection of highways at approximately the same time, the driver on the right (the Defendant in this case) has the right of way.

The Divisional Court agreed with the defendant's submissions and dismissed the appeal.  

 

Attendant Care Benefits under SABS-2010

Can an insurer pro-rate attendant care benefits payable based on the hours of work lost by the attendant care provider?

Tyrone Henry was left a paraplegic after a motor vehicle accident in September 2010. His mother took an unpaid leave of absence from work to provide the full-time care he required. Gore Mutual Insurance took the position that the attendant care payments were limited to the number of hours that Tyrone Henry’s mother had been working as a proportion of the total attendant care hours assessed as reasonable.

Tyrone Henry brought an Application before the Ontario Superior Court (Henry v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company, 2012 ONSC 3687) taking the position that he was entitled to the total attendant care hours. The judge agreed. At issue was the interpretation of the Statutory Accident Benefits Scheduleeffective September 1, 2010 (“SABS-2010”). Justice Ray commented that the intent of SABS-2010 was “to prevent a member of an insured’s family who was not ordinarily an income earner or working outside the home, from profiting from an attendant care benefit, when they would likely be at home anyway and would have looked after the injured person without compensation”. This was not the case with Tyrone Henry’s mother who was employed full-time. Justice Ray held that Gore Mutual was obliged to pay to Tyrone Henry all reasonable and necessary attendant care expenses he was obliged to pay his mother, not limited to the economic loss she sustained from leaving her 40 hour per week job.

Gore Mutual appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal (Henry v. Gore Mutual Insurance Company 2013 ONCA 480). The appeal was dismissed. The Court held that Justice Ray was correct in concluding economic loss was a threshold for entitlement to, but not a measure of, reasonable and necessary attendant care benefits to be paid by an insurer. Once Tyrone Henry’s mother sustained an economic loss, attendant care benefits were payable with respect to all the care she provided to him.

As a result of this case, regardless of the attendant care provider's amount of lost income, as long as they experience a loss of income, they will receive the entire benefit.  This will result in some attendant care providers earning more than they would have if they had not left their employment and others earning less.