In its recent decision of Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company of Canada v. SNIC, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") considered the priority of a travel policy and auto policy to pay out-of-province medical expenses. Both insurers claimed they were excess to each other, with the travel insurer relying upon the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling in RBC Travel Insurance Company v. Aviva Canada Ltd. ("RBC Travel"), which limited the application of section 268(6) of the Insurance Act (which legislates all other insurance policies to be "excess" insurance to auto policies). However, the auto insurer's counsel (Michael Kennedy with McCague Borlack LLP) successfully argued that RBC Travel should be distinguished, resulting in the auto policy being held to be excess due to section 268(6).

This case arose out of injuries sustained by an individual when ice allegedly fell from an above canopy onto her head as she was exiting a grocery store. The plaintiff sued the property owner (represented by Michael Kennedy at McCague Borlack LLP), who in turn sued its winter maintenance contractor for contribution and indemnity pursuant to a hold harmless clause in its contract.

Arbitration regarding whether a claimant had a reasonable explanation for the delay in notifying his insurer of his intention to claim benefits, as well as whether the claimant is entitled to both pre-104 week and post-104 week income replacement benefits.

The applicant, Johnson, was involved in an automobile accident in 2017 and sought benefits pursuant to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (the "Schedule"). The respondent, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada (the "Insurer"), denied psychotherapy benefits. Johnson (the "Applicant") applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) for the resolution of the dispute.

Of the issues adjudicated in this decision, the LAT explored the appropriate rate payable to psychotherapists in the context of statutory accident benefits. 

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice Divisional Court reviewed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the "LAT") and addresses whether auto insurers can require an insured to undergo medical examinations to determine eligibility for prescription medication claims.

This paper provides detailed information across all Canadian jurisdictions regarding:

• Whether interest from litigation loans is recoverable by the plaintiff in Canadian actions, and
• What the impact is of adverse insurance on litigation across Canada.