Adrian Nicolini

The Town of Milton brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a negligence claim by the plaintiffs, who alleged catastrophic injuries from a motorcycle accident caused by a pothole.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove non-repair or causation, and that the Town met the minimum maintenance standards for the road.

The motion was not premature despite incomplete discoveries, as the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to pursue discovery.

Costs were awarded to the Town of Milton.

Both the applicant and the insurer requested reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision.

The applicant challenged the finding that she was not entitled to income replacement benefits (IRBs) because she did not earn employment income prior to the accident.

The insurer challenged the finding that it was not entitled to repayment of $17,563.50 in IRBs because it failed to obtain explicit consent to serve the notice of repayment electronically.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding no errors of law or fact in the original decision.

The applicant's request for costs was also denied.

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

At the time of the accident, the applicant was on an unpaid leave of absence due to a prior slip and fall and was not receiving any employment income.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the definition of "employed" under section 5 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because she was not receiving remuneration, and therefore was not entitled to IRBs.

The respondent insurer sought repayment of $17,563.50 in IRBs that were paid in error.

The Tribunal dismissed the repayment claim, finding that the insurer failed to provide proper notice under section 64(2)(e) of the Schedule because the notice was sent electronically without the applicant's consent.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 limit of the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's meniscal tear and unopposed psychological diagnoses warranted removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal only approved one treatment plan for $2,800, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the remaining claimed expenses were reasonable and necessary.

The plaintiff sued his sisters-in-law for defamation based on a document alleging a preposterous sexual proposition and inappropriate behavior.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the statements were not defamatory in the eyes of a reasonable person, given the context of a family dispute, and that the plaintiff's reaction was disproportionate.

The court also expressed doubts about the publication of the statements due to reliance on inadmissible hearsay and the plaintiff's credibility.

The applicant sought medical benefits for psychotherapy and driving reintegration sessions, as well as transportation expenses, following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent partially approved the medical benefits but denied the enhanced hourly rates and two-hour sessions requested, as well as the transportation expenses.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide medical evidence justifying the enhanced rates or longer sessions.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for transportation expenses because the applicant failed to establish a causal link between his licence suspension and the accident, and failed to provide the required particulars.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident when the pickup truck he was a passenger in went through a red light and was struck by a transport truck going through a green light.

The jury found the driver of the pickup 95% liable and the driver of the transport truck 5% liable.

The appellants (the transport truck driver and owners) appealed, arguing the jury verdict was unreasonable, the trial judge misdirected the jury on causation, and there was improper cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding evidence supported the jury's conclusion that a reasonably prudent driver should have been aware of the hazard, the jury charge was not in error when read as a whole, and the improper cross-examination was not serious enough to undermine trial fairness.