In Ho v. Allstate Insurance (Div Court, 2024) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a joint JR-appeal, this from a LAT SABS decision that upheld a 2004 MVA settlement argued on the grounds that "because he did not sign the mandatory Statutory Disclosure Notice, the settlement does not comply with the requirements of s. 9.1(3)6 of R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 664 under the Insurance Act":
[6] Mr. Ho entered into the settlement and initialed each page of the Statutory Disclosure Notice including the signature page. He took pen in hand and wrote his identifying marks on the pages to signify his acceptance of the settlement as required by the regulation. The fact that his initials were elsewhere on the page rather than on the signature line is the height of technicality.
[7] Accepting the version of the applicable statute and regulation submitted on behalf of Mr. Ho and accepting that the burden of proof was on the insurer to establish that the Statutory Disclosure Notice complied with the regulatory provisions, I see no error in the outcome nor any need for further evidence on this preliminary gating issue.
[8] There is no dispute that the test for compliance of an SDN is a bright-line test that does not allow for fine measurements of partial compliance or near compliance. But that does not allow a party to escape his agreement by technical arguments that are immaterial to the issue of the insurer’s compliance with the regulation and the regulatory intention.
[9] In recently re-affirming the bright-line nature of the test for compliance under s. 9.1 of the regulation, in Pope v. Pilot Insurance Company, 2024 ONSC 2932 (CanLII), this court also held that “[t]echnical and immaterial defects will not invalidate a notice.”
The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.
