Adam Somogyi

The Receiver of a deceased personal injury lawyer's professional corporation brought a motion seeking to impose a 'Sliding Fee Structure' on new counsel who took over the deceased lawyer's client files.

The Receiver argued this was necessary to efficiently realize on the estate's interest in the files.

The court dismissed the request to impose the fee structure, finding it would inappropriately override the clients' statutory rights under the Solicitors Act to receive and assess a bill.

However, the court ordered new counsel to provide the Receiver with 'Determinable Information' about the files to assist the Receiver in rendering accounts, subject to a privilege protocol.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied funding for chiropractic services and a chronic pain assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain syndrome, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate a functional impairment caused by chronic pain, noting her injuries were uncomplicated soft-tissue injuries that were improving.

The application was dismissed, and the requested benefits and interest were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including attendant care benefits, following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant should be barred from proceeding because she failed to attend an insurer examination under section 44 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's notice of examination was not compliant with section 42(7) of the Schedule because it was issued without requesting a new Form 1.

Consequently, the applicant was not barred from proceeding, and the respondent was not entitled to the costs of the missed examination.

However, to ensure procedural fairness, the Tribunal ordered a timeline for the respondent to properly request an assessment and for the parties to exchange reports prior to the hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that barred him from applying for income replacement benefits due to his failure to attend an insurer's examination.

The Vice-Chair found that the Tribunal made a significant error of law by concluding that the insurer's notice of the orthopaedic assessment complied with s. 44(5)(c) of the Schedule.

The notice failed to state the regulated health profession of the assessor.

As the notice was non-compliant, the insurer could not rely on s. 55(1)2 to bar the application.

The reconsideration was granted, and the withheld income replacement benefits were ordered payable, though a claim for a special award was denied.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking orders to compel the defendants to answer undertakings and refusals from discovery examinations.

The underlying dispute involved an alleged unpaid settlement amount, with the plaintiff claiming negligence and conversion of funds by the defendants, who relied on a disputed promissory note and authorization.

The court largely granted the plaintiff's requests, ordering disclosure of communications between the defendants, payment receipts, original emails for metadata, and Law Society files related to one defendant's retainer.

Additionally, one defendant was ordered to produce tax returns for three years preceding 2014 and documentation of his location when sending key documents.

The court denied the request for one defendant's U.S. financial statements and income tax returns, finding them irrelevant.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the applicant was barred from proceeding because he failed to attend three requested medical and vocational examinations.

The Tribunal found the insurer provided sufficient notice for the orthopaedic assessment but not for the functional abilities or job site evaluations.

Consequently, the applicant is barred from proceeding with his claim until he attends the orthopaedic assessment.

The Tribunal also awarded the applicant 25 per cent of a delayed benefit payment under Regulation 664, but denied his request for costs.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) after the respondent terminated them.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments caused by the accident, rendering her substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a general labourer.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the IRBs and interest on overdue amounts.

The applicant's claim for a special award under Regulation 664 was dismissed, as the respondent's initial denial of treatment plans was not unreasonable given the medical evidence available at the time.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for income replacement benefits (IRB).

The parties agreed the applicant was entitled to IRB but disagreed on the quantum, specifically whether short term and long term disability benefits should be deducted from the IRB on a gross or net-of-tax basis.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that the definition of 'other income replacement assistance' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule refers to the gross amount of disability benefits.

The Tribunal found that calculating deductions based on net income could lead to double recovery and was contrary to the legislative intent.

The applicant's claim for higher IRB amounts based on net deductions was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to add a $150,000 claim for punitive damages, alleging the defendants falsified a lease agreement.

She also sought to compel answers to undertakings and refusals from discoveries.

The court dismissed the motion to amend, finding the proposed claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiff knew of the alleged alterations more than two years prior.

Furthermore, the amendment failed to plead an independent actionable wrong with sufficient particularity.

On the discovery issues, the court ordered the defendants to answer two outstanding undertakings and one refusal, but found the remaining questions were either already answered or properly refused for irrelevance.