Ontario courts deal with authority of case management masters in insurance case

The decisions of Case Management Masters should be treated with the same deference on appeal as the decisions of higher-ranked judges when their decisions are appealed to higher courts, the Ontario Court of Appeal has confirmed in an auto collision case.
In Zeitoun v. Economical Insurance Group, Mario Zeitoun was a passenger in a car insured by Economical that collided in 1992.
Eleven years after the accident, the Zeitouns, who are ordinarily residents in Israel and who have no assets in Ontario, issued a claim against Economical in reliance on the uninsured/underinsured motor vehicle coverage. 
The Economical brought forward a motion for security of costs. Such a motion may be made in various circumstances, including when plaintiffs are ordinarily resident outside Ontario.
The master ruled the Zeitouns were not “impecunious,” as they had claimed, and had “not addressed, even tangentially, the merits of the claim in their materials,” according to the Superior Court of Ontario.
But on appeal, a motions judge heard the same matter all over again. After re-hearing the matter, the motions judge overturned the decision of the case master, substituting a judgment that “impecuniosity had not been shown on the evidence.” In addition, the motions judge ruled, there was not an inherent right to order security of costs based on non-residency.
The Economical further appealed the matter to the Superior Court, arguing that the case master’s disposition of the matter should have been granted more deference.
The Ontario Superior Court agreed, finding the appeal of the case master’s decision should not have been handled de novo (i.e. by means of a re-hearing).
“There is, in my view, no compelling reason for adopting differing standards of review on appeal depending solely on the place in the judicial hierarchy occupied by the decision maker whose decision is under appeal,” Ontario Superior Court Justice Wailan Low wrote in a paragraph referenced with approval in the Court of Appeal of Ontario’s subsequent endorsement of Low’s decision. “I would hold that where the master has erred in law, the standard of review should be correctness whether the decision be final or interlocutory and whether or not it is vital to the disposition of the lawsuit.
“The danger in doing otherwise [i.e. and proceeding by way of a re-hearing] is the potential for the development of straying lines of authority with resulting confusion.”