Direct Dial: 416-640-2956
E-mail: ckorte@brownandkorte.ca
Catherine is the co-founding partner of Brown & Korte Barristers. She acts as litigation and legislative counsel on behalf of automobile insurers and litigation counsel on behalf of all insurers.
Catherine has been practising in the area of insurance defence litigation since 1995. Her current practice focuses on the defence of statutory accident benefits claims, including acting on behalf of auto insurers in loss transfer and priority disputes between insurers, and tort claims.
She acted as legislative counsel on behalf of automobile insurers. In May of 2003 Catherine reviewed the draft Statutory Accident Benefits regulation for Bill 198 on behalf of the Association of Direct Writers. In August of 2003, she appeared before the auto review committee on behalf of the Association of Direct Writers on Bill 198. In July of 2005, Catherine made submissions to the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators and the Canadian Insurance Services Regulatory Organizations regarding relationships between insurers and sales intermediaries on behalf of the Ontario Bar Association.
Catherine has appeared on behalf of insurer clients at the Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal. She also appears regularly before the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.
Catherine is a member of the Executive of the Insurance Section of the Ontario Bar Association, the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Advocates' Society, the Metropolitan Toronto Lawyers Association and the Toronto Medical Legal Society.
Current Decisions
Ayub v. Langdon, July 30, 2002 - The applicant arranged insurance on a 1988 Dodge Van in which he has no insurable interest by producing an ownership slip to a 1983 van. It was found the applicant was precluded from benefits on the basis he was operating an uninsured vehicle and had made a material representation that induced Langdon to enter a contract of insurance.
Belous v. Scottish & York Insurance, October 2002 - The applicant brought a death benefit claim alleging their father's motor vehicle accident injuries significantly and materially contributed to his subsequent death. The Arbitrator found the deceased fell because he was impaired by alcohol and his motor vehicle accident injuries did not materially or significantly contribute to his death. As a result, the applicants were precluded from death and funeral benefits.
Suliman v. Economical Mutual Insurance, December 16, 2002 - The insurer successfully argued the applicant's representative be excluded from the arbitration proceedings. The arbitrator found Messrs. DeWitt, Vaskevich and Simkhaev did not comply with their duties and responsibilities as representatives and their participation in the proceeding was incompatible with the proper administration of justice.
Bertram v. CGU Insurance, April 16, 2003 - A motion was brought to prevent Centre City Health Recovery from bringing multiple proceedings arising from each disputed treatment plan. CGU successfully argued all treatment plans were added to the existing arbitration proceeding and an acknowledgement was required by the applicant's representative that they were not lawyers nor members of the Law Society.
Utracki Estate v. Lombard General Insurance, October 20, 2004 - This was a death benefits claim in which it was alleged the deceased's motor vehicle accident injuries interfered with his chemotherapy regimen accelerating his death. Lombard successfully argued the motor vehicle accident was not a significant and material contribution to the death. The Arbitrator found the deceased passed away from the natural progression of his cancer condition.
McDougall v. Kingsway General Insurance, November 18, 2004 - McLeish Orlando as counsel for the applicant attempted to prevent the insurer from a Section 42 neurological assessment by Dr. Ranelli on the basis this assessment was post-stoppage of benefits. The Arbitrator found Kingsway was allowed to assess the applicant's neurological condition and a Section 42 assessment was ordered.
Maguire-Card v. RBC General Insurance, August 19, 2005 - The applicant sought income replacement benefits arising from a business plan to open her catering business. RBC was successful in establishing the business plan did not qualify as employment or an offer of employment under the SABS. The applicant was precluded from income replacement benefits.
Baron v. Kingsway General Insurance Company, 2006 - The insurer successfully argued it was entitled to defence medicals in order to challenge a CAT DAC determination.
The Personal v. Kingsway General Insurance Company, 2006 - This was a loss transfer dispute between insurers. Kingsway successfully argued The Personal was estopped from disputing liability after its initial acceptance of loss transfer.
Franca Miliucci and Christopher Dewald v. Milos Antic, Wafic Choucair and RBC General Insurance Company, 2008 - This was a tort action involving disputes regarding attendance at Courts of Justice Act Medical Assessments.
Madonik v. Aviva Canada Inc, 2008 - This was an appeal decision in which the insurer successfully upheld the Arbitrator's Order regarding production obligations of the applicant.
Eric Boucher, by his litigation guardian v. Tomascik, 2009 - This was a tort action involving dismissal due to party's non-compliance.
Wendy Boucher v. Tomascik, 2009 - This was a tort action involving dismissal due to party's non-compliance.
Mr. S. v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2010 - This was a competency hearing in which the insurer obtained an arbitrator’s order that the applicant was a party under disability.
Cowans v. Motors Insurance Corporation, 2010 - This was an arbitral decision as to whether the insured met the post-104 week test for entitlement to income replacement benefits.
Joseph Galati v. Aviva Canada Inc., 2011 - This was an appeal decision of Director’s Delegate Lawrence Blackman upholding the arbitrator’s decision to dismiss the applicant’s claims for benefits.
Troncoso v. RBC, 2011 - This was a combined tort action and accident benefits action in which the insurer was successful in obtaining a judicial order dismissing all claims.
Other Decisions
Lewicki ats Painter [1998] O.J. No. 520 (Ontario Court of Appeal)
Singh ats Galpreet (2000) (Ontario Superior Court of Justice)
- unreported jury trial, defence motor vehicle personal injury claim
A & P ats O'Neill (1999) (Ontario Court of Justice, General Division)
- unreported jury trial, defence slip and fall, personal injury claim
|
