On a Rule 21 appeal arising from a civil action against an accident benefits insurer, its assessment and investigation vendors, and Ontario, the Court of Appeal largely upheld striking the tort and statutory claims but revived the insurer bad faith pleading. It agreed it was plain and obvious that battery, intrusion upon seclusion, and abuse of process could not succeed (no vicarious liability for an OT assessor retained through an intermediary, no unlawful access pleaded given signed consents, and no abuse of process because the insurer did not initiate proceedings). It also upheld striking the son in law’s claims for lack of a close relationship and task connection for vicarious liability where the investigator worked for a separate surveillance company.
The Court confirmed the SABS constitutional and Human Rights Code challenges were an abuse of process given prior LAT proceedings and that the proper route was judicial review. The only successful appeal point was breach of good faith: read generously, the pleadings alleged contractual breaches grounded in the SABS, and the motion judge erred in holding the SABS are not part of the insurance contract, so the good faith claim against the insurer was reinstated with leave to amend particulars.