Agatha Dix

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for an in-home assessment, prescription medication, a chronic pain assessment, and chiropractic treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the claims.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to the in-home assessment or the prescription expenses, as the evidence did not establish they were reasonable and necessary for accident-related impairments.

However, the Tribunal granted the claims for the chronic pain assessment and chiropractic treatment, finding that the applicant's pre-existing chronic pain was exacerbated by the accident and that the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary to manage her symptoms.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payments for the approved benefits.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding that an incident where the respondent was bumped by a car door and subsequently punched in the face constituted an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The parties had agreed to a written preliminary issue hearing based on a specific question.

However, the LAT adjudicator unilaterally restated the issue in the final decision without notifying the parties.

The Divisional Court held that this breached procedural fairness, as the appellant was denied the opportunity to know the case to be met and to present relevant evidence and arguments.

The appeal was allowed, the decision quashed, and the matter remitted to a different adjudicator.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff was awarded $2,000 for future housekeeping expenses, with all other heads of damage reduced to zero by statutory deductibles.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment, arguing the housekeeping award should not be reduced by a prior $3,650 accident benefits settlement.

The court found the settlement release covered past, present, and future housekeeping expenses, reducing the jury award to zero.

As the successful parties who had made a better offer to settle, the defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs of $138,416.42.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries from a motor vehicle accident.

The defendants admitted liability but brought a threshold motion to declare the plaintiff's non-pecuniary loss claim barred under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, arguing the plaintiff did not sustain a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

The court applied the three-part Meyer v. Bright test, finding the plaintiff suffered permanent chronic pain, anxiety, driving phobia, and depression, which constituted a permanent and serious impairment of important functions.

The defendants' motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and commenced an action against one driver.

He later amended his claim to add a second driver as a defendant, and the first driver crossclaimed against the second driver.

The second driver successfully moved for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim as statute-barred, but the motion judge refused to dismiss the crossclaim.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiff's appeal, finding the motion judge erred by conflating a lack of due diligence with the actual date of discoverability under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The Court dismissed the second driver's cross-appeal regarding the crossclaim, upholding the motion judge's finding on when the claim for contribution and indemnity was reasonably discoverable.

Following a motion where a defendant successfully dismissed the plaintiff's claim but failed to dismiss a co-defendant's cross-claim, the court determined the costs payable.

The successful defendant sought costs against the plaintiff, which were fixed at $16,000 after considering the complexity added by the plaintiff's arguments regarding the threshold condition.

The co-defendant sought costs against the moving defendant for successfully defending the cross-claim, which were fixed at $5,155.82 on a partial indemnity basis.

The moving party sought summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident on the basis that the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued that the limitation period began either when a police report disclosed the identity of the moving party or when a medical expert later confirmed that the plaintiff’s injuries met the statutory threshold for non‑pecuniary damages under the Insurance Act.

The court held that the plaintiff knew or ought to have known the identity of the moving party at the time of the accident and failed to act with due diligence in pursuing the claim.

The court also rejected the argument that discovery occurred only upon a later medical diagnosis, finding the plaintiff had sufficient information earlier to investigate and pursue the claim.

The action against the moving party was therefore statute‑barred, while a co‑defendant’s crossclaim for contribution and indemnity was found to be timely.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's personal injury action arising from a bicycle accident allegedly caused by the defendants' dog, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of over $294,000.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that the defendants' settlement offers lacked a substantive element of compromise and the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible.

Furthermore, the court reduced the defendants' partial indemnity costs by 40% to penalize their counsel's failure to disclose surveillance evidence, veterinary records, and other documents prior to trial, which undermined the policy of early settlement and full disclosure.

The plaintiffs' home and personal property were damaged by a fire.

They sued their insurer and the restoration contractor for incomplete and deficient repairs, unpaid additional living expenses, and damaged or destroyed personal property.

The insurer alleged the plaintiffs committed fraud in their proofs of loss.

The court found no fraud, holding that the insurer breached its duty of good faith by raising the fraud allegation as a high-handed litigation strategy.

The court awarded the plaintiffs damages for the deficient home repairs, additional living expenses, and lost personal property, along with $100,000 in punitive damages against the insurer.