Adam Eman Asgarali

Appeal of a summary judgment motion where the motion judge found that the appellant and respondent had entered into a valid partnership agreement to acquire, renovate, and rent a property in Scarborough.

The respondent contributed to the purchase price and renovation costs but only the appellant's name was on title.

The appellant obtained mortgages exceeding the parties' agreement without the respondent's consent.

The motion judge granted declaratory relief recognizing the respondent's 50 percent interest in the property via resulting trust, issued a permanent injunction against harassment and interference, and ordered a reference to determine damages.

The appellant appealed on grounds of procedural fairness, text message interpretation, and appropriateness of summary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's reasoning or application of the summary judgment process.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 (55% whole person impairment).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed competing medical assessments and preferred the respondent's experts, finding the applicant's combined physical and psychological impairments resulted in a 26% whole person impairment, falling short of the 55% threshold.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for a functional abilities evaluation, finding it was not reasonable and necessary, and consequently denied claims for interest and a special award.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a 2018 motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to a physiotherapy treatment plan, an award, and interest.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove she met the criteria for catastrophic impairment under Criteria 6 (physical), 7 (combined physical and psychological), or 8 (mental/behavioural).

The adjudicator rejected the applicant's expert evidence, finding it inconsistent with the AMA Guides and unsupported by objective medical evidence.

The claim for the physiotherapy treatment plan was also dismissed as the applicant failed to include the plan in evidence or prove it was reasonable and necessary.

Consequently, the claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she suffered a catastrophic impairment under Criteria 7 and 8 of the Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a whole person impairment of at least 55 per cent, as the physical and psychological impairment ratings provided by her assessors were largely unsubstantiated by contemporaneous medical evidence.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to prove marked impairment in at least three areas of function due to a mental or behavioural disorder resulting from the accident.

The application was dismissed.