cerns; and that a reasonable person would
regard the invasion as highly offensive, causing distress, humiliation or anguish. While
Tsige was apologetic and contrite, her
actions were deliberate, prolonged and
shocking. She committed the tort of intrusion upon seclusion when she repeatedly
examined the private bank records of Jones.
The intrusion was intentional, it amounted
to an unlawful invasion of Jones’ private
affairs, it would be viewed as highly offensive to the reasonable person, and it caused
distress, humiliation or anguish. Damages
for intrusion upon seclusion in cases where
the plaintiff had suffered no pecuniary loss
were to be modest but sufficient to mark the
wrong that had been done.
Jones v. Tsige, [2012] O.J. No. 148,
Ontario Court of Appeal, W.K. Winkler
C.J.O., R.J. Sharpe J.A. and J.D. Cun-ningham A.C.J.S.C.J. (ad hoc), January
18, 2012.
INSURANCE LAW
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE –
Compulsory government schemes –
Claims against parties unknown –
Insurance corporations, commissions
and tribunals – Liability coverage –
Rights and duties of insurer.
Appeal by Pilot Insurance Company from
an order finding that the Motor Vehicle
Accident Claims Fund had complied with
notice requirements. Grzanka was a cyclist
who was injured when he was struck by an
unknown motor vehicle. He applied for
benefits from the Fund in March 2007, but
did not attach a police report as required, as
he was unable to obtain one. An investigator
on behalf of the Fund later determined that
a 911 call had been made by the driver who
hit Grzanka. However, the Fund was only
able to obtain the specifics of that call after
bringing a court motion on September 8,
2008. At that time, it was determined that
Pilot insured the vehicle that struck Grzanka,
and the Fund put Pilot on notice. An arbitra-
tor found that the Fund did not comply with
s. 3(1) of O. Reg. 283/95 (the “Regulation”)
and did not provide timely notice to Pilot,
and therefore the Fund was responsible for
paying Grzanka’s benefits. The Fund
appealed from the arbitrator’s decision. The
court allowed the appeal, finding that the
Fund did not receive a “completed applica-
tion” or a “functionally adequate” application
for the purposes of s. 3(1) until it received the
911 record. The application judge concluded
that the Fund did not have sufficient infor-
mation to determine the insurer of the
unidentified motorist before it received the
911 record and therefore the limitation per-
iod did not begin to run until September 8,
2008. He further found that the Fund was
not estopped from asserting that it did not
have a completed application until Septem-
ber 2008 as the elements of estoppel by
representation had not been made out. On
appeal, Pilot argued that the application
judge erred in reversing the arbitrator’s deci-
sion that the Fund did not comply with the
notice requirements under s. 3.
HELD: Appeal allowed. The arbitrator’s
evidentiary findings supported the conclusion that the Fund had a functionally
adequate application, and therefore a completed application in September 2008 when
it obtained the 911 call. However, because
the Fund was not diligent in investigating
the missing information, it could not claim
that it did not receive a completed application until September 2008. Rather, the
Fund ought to have pursued the information by at least February 2008 and was
therefore required to put Pilot on notice
under s. 3 of the Regulation by May 2008.
Ontario (Minister of Finance) v. Pilot
Insurance Co., [2012] O.J. No. 167,
Ontario Court of Appeal, J.C. MacPherson, H.S. LaForme and G.J. Epstein
JJ.A., January 19, 2012.
LABOUR LAW
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES – Injunc-
tions.
Application by Ocean Choice Inter-
national LP for an interim injunction against
the defendants, Stockley, King, Moulton and
FFAW/CAW, restraining and enjoining
them from entering and/or continuing to be
upon Ocean Choice’s lands at Marystown,
from interfering with or in any way imped-
ing all persons with lawful objects from
entering or leaving Ocean Choice’s lands and
premises, or in any way interfering with cus-
tomers and invitees of Ocean Choice pursu-
ing their lawful objects or doing business
with Ocean Choice. Ocean Choice owned
and operated a fish plant at Marystown. The
FFAW/CAW was the union representing
workers at the fish plant. There was a col-
lective agreement in place between Ocean
Choice and the union. Stockley and King
were employees of Ocean Choice who had
been laid off in July 2011. Moulton was an
executive member and vice president of the
union. On December 2, 2011, Ocean Choice
informed its employees that the plant was
closing permanently and that their employ-
ment would be terminated on March 2,
2012. Ocean Choice locked the gates to the
property after the departure of the employ-
ees on December 2, 2011. On December 9,
2011, the gate on the property was unlocked
without Ocean Choice’s permission. Employ-
ees of Ocean Choice, including Stockley,
proceeded to the watch house on the prop-
erty and unlocked it as well. Between
December 9 and December 22, 2011, union
members occupied Ocean Choice’s property
without its permission. Moulton deposed
that the union members were concerned
that Ocean Choice might have removed
equipment or plant contents which could
have hindered the ability of the plant to con-
tinue operation either with the company or
another possible processor who might have
been interested in taking over the facility.
Written notices of trespass and direction to
vacate were hand delivered to members of
the union on December 17, 2011, pursuant to
the Petty Trespass Act. Notices also were
posted at the entrance to the parking lot as
well as the gate and the watch house. On
You be the judge.
More powerful case analysis. New timesaving features.
Even easier to use. CaseMap® 10.
Successful litigators know that winning a case doesn’t
happen by accident. It takes the right skills, the right
information, and the right tools working together.
From the beginning of your case to the end, CaseMap 10 gives
you more control — with evidence organized and shared the
way you want it, searches conducted the way you need them,
and a boost in efficiency that will win praise from clients.
Visit www.lexisnexis.ca/casemap10 to
download your 30-day free trial* today.
Lexis Nexis and the Knowledge Burst logo are registered trademarks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used under licence. CaseMap is a registered trademark of LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. © 2012 LexisNexis Canada Inc.
All rights reserved.
* Some restrictions may apply.
