Alessandra Ottaviano

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

Prior to the written hearing, the respondent approved four of the disputed treatment plans and partially approved two catastrophic impairment assessment plans.

The applicant withdrew the dispute regarding the remaining amounts for the partially approved plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to interest on the four approved plans but dismissed the claim for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, as the applicant provided no evidence that the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants abandoned their appeal on the eve of the hearing.

The decision addresses the issue of costs arising from the abandoned appeal.

The appellants argued against a costs award, citing an offer to settle.

The respondents, specifically the Estate of YYY and XXX, sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis, alleging the appeal constituted an abuse of process.

The court rejected both arguments, finding the offer to settle did not preclude a costs award and that the appeal, despite its procedural history, was not an abuse of process.

The respondents Estate of YYY and XXX were awarded $30,000 in all-inclusive costs from the appellants.

The moving parties, class action plaintiffs, brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Glustein J. dated December 6, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding parties.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard a motion to quash an appeal regarding the appointment of a litigation administrator.

The moving parties argued that the appointment was an interlocutory order and therefore not appealable to the Court of Appeal.

The responding parties contended that the order became final because it was joined with a final order validating a provisional opt-out form.

The Court found that the appointment of a litigation administrator is an interlocutory order, distinct from decisions made under that authority.

Consequently, the appeal from the order appointing the litigation administrator was quashed, while the appeal concerning the opt-out form remained.

The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of family status and age after being fired from a business owned by his wife's uncle.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's relationship with the owner did not fall within the Code's definition of family status, which is limited to parent and child relationships.

Furthermore, the applicant could not provide any evidence linking his termination to his age.

The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.