Fortin et al. v. Hope et al., (1996) 13 O.T.C. 202 (GD)

• Judge: Meehan, J.
• Court: Ontario Court of Justice General Division (Canada)
• Case Date: August 09, 1996
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1996), 13 O.T.C. 202 (GD)

Fortin v. Hope (1996), 13 O.T.C. 202 (GD)

MLB headnote and full text

Barbara Fortin, René Fortin, Claude Fortin, Theresa Perron and Pauline Lefebvre (plaintiffs) v. Edward W. Hope, Sabrina Lashell Hope and Allstate Insurance Company of Canada (defendants)

(C789/94)

Indexed As: Fortin et al. v. Hope et al.

Ontario Court of Justice

General Division

Sudbury

Meehan, J.

August 9, 1996.

Summary:

The Fortins were insured with Allstate. Mrs. Fortin was injured in Florida as a result of the negligence of an uninsured motor vehicle. The Fortins immediately contacted Allstate. According to the court, discussions dealt with "the usual benefits payable in an attempt to rehabilitate" on the one hand (the benefits) and, on the other hand, "the respononsibility of the insured under the uninsured motor vehicle coverage to deal with that question, indirectly, I suppose, [Mrs. Fortin's] damages and liability and so on" (the damages). The Fortins brought two actions, one dealing with the benefits and the other dealing with the damages. Pleadings were exchanged in the damages action. The plaintiffs filed a reply alleging misrepresentation and estoppel against Allstate and also claiming punitive damages. Allstate moved to strike out the reply and for summary judgment against the plaintiffs.

The Ontario Court (General Division) allowed the motion in part only to strike the claim for punitive damages.

Practice - Topic 1703

Pleadings - Reply and subsequent pleadings - Matters properly included in reply - See paragraphs 1 to 31.

Practice - Topic 2231

Pleadings - Striking out pleadings - Grounds - False, frivolous, vexatious or scandalous - See paragraphs 1 to 31.

Cases Noticed:

Starkman v. Delhi Court Ltd., [1961] O.R. 457 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 16].

Ungerman (Irving) Ltd. et al. v. Galanis and Haut (1991), 50 O.A.C. 176; 4 O.R.(3d) 545 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].

Counsel:

R.G.S. Del Frate, for the plaintiff;

J. Levine, for the defendants.

This motion was heard by Meehan, J., of the Ontario Court (General Division), who delivered the following oral decision on August 9, 1996.