http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2014/2014onsc356/2014onsc356.html
[1] State Farm seeks leave to appeal the decision of Lococo J. 2013 ONSC 2941 (CanLII), (2013 ONSC 2941) dismissing the motion of the Applicant seeking to have the claims of the Plaintiffs, for punitive and aggravated damages only, declared a nullity. For the reasons that follow I would dismiss this motion.
Backgound:
[2] Future Health Inc. was in the business of providing treatment plans and health care services to patients injured in motor vehicle accidents. The patients were covered by automobile insurance policies issued by general insurance companies, including State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company of Canada.
[5] In this action, the Plaintiff has claimed damages for intentional interference with economic relations, inducing breach of contract, bad faith and conspiracy. The Plaintiff also seeks aggravated damages as well as punitive and exemplary damages against State Farm.
[24] The motion before Lococo J. was certainly important to the parties as it was an attempt to eliminate a major part of the claims advanced by the Plaintiff. That however, is not the test under the rule. The onus is on the Applicant to persuade me that the issue decided by Lococo J. is of such public importance to the development of the law and the administration of justice that leave to appeal should be granted. The Applicant has not so persuaded me. The law under Rule 21 has been established for decades. There is no reason to revisit it. The decision of the motions judge was a simple case of him properly exercising his discretion under a rule which has a long, well established history, and is used only to dismiss cases where it is plain and obvious they cannot succeed. That is not this case.