to prepare a response and properly prepare
to test the evidence of respondent’s
appraiser. The issue of the value of the
house had only come up very recently as a
result of applicant’s latest appraisal, the discrepancy in the appraisal value and the
alleged explanation given by the appraiser.
It could not be said that respondent was
guilty of unreasonable delay.
Séguin v. Séguin,  O.J. No.
1543, Ont. S.C.J., Charbonneau J., Apr.
16/10. Digest No. 3003-012 (Approx. 4
IDENTIFICATION – The trial judge
did not err in his consideration of the
evidence related to the identification of
Appeal from convictions for breaking
and entering, committing assault causing
bodily harm, and possession of a weapon for
a purpose dangerous to the public peace.
Accused and a co-accused broke into com-
plainant’s apartment at night. Accused car-
ried something like a pipe. The co-accused
lunged at complainant with a knife. Accused
hit complainant over the head with an
object. The entire incident took about five
minutes. The bedroom lights were off dur-
ing the attack but light was coming from the
television and from the open door into the
apartment hallway. Complainant had
known the co-accused for several years but
had met accused only a few times before the
attack. Accused argued that the trial judge
erred in relying on complainant’s identifica-
applicant municipality following the
annexation of land.
Application for a declaration that applicant municipality did not become responsible for certain roads as a result of a
restructuring order. In 1998 applicant was
restructured pursuant to the Municipal Act
(Ont.). As a result, it acquired control of
substantial adjacent lands. Two roads were
included. One road connected the municipality with a First Nation with a population
of about 1,000. The second road connected
a high school and residence for First Nations
students to the municipality. The roads
were the sole means of road access to those
communities. A dispute arose about which
level of government had jurisdiction over
the two roads, which were in serious disrepair. Both the province and municipality
disavowed responsibility for them.
HELD: Application dismissed. The purpose of ss. 262 and 263 of the Municipal
Act was to give the municipality control over
the highways and bridges within its boundaries. The province of Ontario dedicated the
subject roads by virtue of ss. 262 and 263 of
the Act. While the subject roads had status
as public forest roads under the Public
Lands Act (Ont.) before annexation, that
continued status was inconsistent with the
scheme of legislative dedication under the
Municipal Act. The province also dedicated
the roads by its course of conduct. Proof of
its intention to dedicate was found in the
documentary record, including statements
by the minister of transportation of intention to dedicate. The documentary record
demonstrated a clear and unequivocal
intention to accept the subject roads by the
municipality. It performed road maintenance over a sustained period and at significant cost. The maintenance was undertaken
by the town’s work force without permission
from the province. The municipality represented to the public and various government ministries and agencies that it had
undertaken responsibility for the roads
within its annexed territory. It endeavoured
to seek capital funding to upgrade the roads
and accepted payment in lieu of taxes for
them. The roads were, and have been, municipal highways since Jan. 1, 1998, and the
municipality was under a statutory duty to
repair and maintain them.
Sioux Lookout (Municipality) v. Can-
ada,  O.J. No. 1495, Ont. S.C.J.,
Pierce J., Apr. 14/10. Digest No. 3003-
014 (Approx. 13 pp.)
gent lessor’s liability insurance policy with
appellant insurer. The third party was sued
in a personal injury action after she was
involved in a motor vehicle accident with
the rented vehicle. Respondent denied a
duty to defend and indemnify the third
party on the basis that C Co. did not have
coverage for that particular car because it
did not identify the vehicle in its monthly
fleet report. Appellant’s application for a
declaration that respondent’s policy covered
the vehicle was dismissed.
HELD: Appeal allowed. The parties contracted for monthly reports based upon the
actual amount of vehicles in the fleet. Based
on the wording of the policy and endorsement, respondent’s insurance contract provided coverage for the leased cars in C Co.’s
fleet, the number of which C Co. was obliged
to include in a monthly report to respondent. The parties decided to assess the risk
based on the number of cars in the fleet,
rather than the amount of rental income or
rental mileage for the relevant month. A
description of each vehicle was not necessary in the fleet insurance context for compliance purposes and to enable the insurer
to rate the risk or premium based on the
value of the particular automobile.
Lombard Canada Ltd. v. Zurich Insurance Co.,  O.J. No. 1645, Ont.
C.A., per Lang J.A. (Cronk and Juriansz
JJ.A. concurring), Apr. 22/10. Digest No.
3003-015 (Approx. 9 pp.)
ACQUISITION – The court found that
two roads became the responsibility of
to The Lawyers Weekly Now get premium access
Yes! I would like to subscribe to The Lawyers Weekly.
; 1 Year print+digital (48-issues) for $265, plus tax
; 2 Years print+digital (96-issues) for $449, plus tax
; 1 Year digital only for $240, plus tax
; 2 Years digital only for $405, plus tax
________________________________________________________________________________________________ ; Home ; Business
City Province Postal Code
Phone Number Fax Number
Method of Payment
; Visa ; MasterCard ; AMEX ; Cheque enclosed
Credit Card Number Expiry Date
Card Holder Name Signature
For faster service, order online at: www.thelawyersweekly.ca
Mail your subscription order to: LexisNexis Canada Inc. 700–123 Commerce Valley Drive East, Markham, ON L3T 7W8
Fax to: 905-479-4082 or use our toll-free fax at 1-800-461-3275
Please allow 2-3 weeks for delivery of first issue. Make cheque payable to LexisNexis Canada.
Offer expires October 31, 2010. Reservation Code: 4365
COVERAGE – A motor vehicle rented
by a third party was covered by optional
insurance provided by respondent
insurer pursuant to a fleet insurance
Appeal from a decision concluding that a
motor vehicle rented by a third party from C
Co. was not covered by the optional insurance provided by the respondent insurer
pursuant to a fleet insurance endorsement.
The policy provided specific coverage for a
specific automobile and defined a described
automobile as one specifically shown on the
certificate of automobile insurance. The
endorsement provided coverage for licenced
automobiles leased from any lessor for more
than 30 days where the lease agreement
required C Co. to provide automobile insurance. C Co. leased the vehicle from T Co.
The form of lease obliged C Co. to provide
insurance, but T Co. maintained a contin-
GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION – An
arbitrator did not have jurisdiction to
make an award which altered the policy
of a university senate.
Appeal from an arbitrator’s decision in
appellant association’s grievance against
respondent university. The association
alleged the university’s policy on student
evaluation of teaching violated the parties’
collective agreement. It sought a moratorium on the application of the policy pending
a resolution of its grievance. The arbitrator
agreed with the university that its senate
policies were not arbitrable, and found he
lacked jurisdiction to sit in judgment on it.
The university, as employer, had no power
to bind its senate to terms of the collective
agreement that conflicted with the terms of
the senate’s policies. Because the Labour
Relations Board was not entitled to interfere with such policies, the arbitrator
appointed pursuant to the collective agreement had no basis for doing so.
HELD: Appeal dismissed. The purpose
of the policy was to improve teaching at the
university. That objective was within the
statutory mandate of the university senate.
The arbitrator was correct in finding he
lacked the jurisdiction to make an award
which detracted from or altered the policy.
To the extent that the policy might conflict
with the collective agreement, the arbitrator
had no power to grant relief through the
harmonization of the policy with the collective agreement.
Faculty Assn. of the University of British Columbia v. University of British
Columbia,  B.C.J. No. 679,
B.C.C.A., per Prowse J.A. (Lowry and
Nielson JJ.A concurring), Apr. 20/10.
Digest No. 3003-016 (Approx. 19 pp.)
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE – Plain-
tiff had the requisite knowledge that