Alexander J.D. Curry

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that her motor vehicle insurance policy was valid at the time of her accident, alleging she paid her broker in cash before cancellation.

The defendant insurer brought a cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing the policy was properly cancelled for non-payment and that the plaintiff's claim for statutory accident benefits was statute-barred.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that a trial was necessary to assess the credibility of the plaintiff and her husband regarding the alleged cash payment, which constituted a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision denying his claim for $62,877.65 for the construction of a residential aqua therapy pool as a medical or rehabilitation benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate upheld the Arbitrator's finding that the home pool was not a reasonable and necessary expense, as the appellant had access to a public pool that met his temporary treatment needs and had shown improvement with its use.

The appeal was dismissed.

The parties sought a consent order under Rule 48.14(4) directing the Registrar not to dismiss the action for delay, arising from a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The court granted the order and issued a brief endorsement interpreting Rule 48.14 ahead of the January 1, 2017 administrative dismissals.

The court clarified that actions dismissed for delay by the Registrar should not contain a costs order, Rule 48.14 does not apply to case-managed actions or applications, and it does not apply to actions that have been stayed.

In a civil jury trial, the plaintiff brought a motion seeking to question sworn jurors for potential bias relating to abortion after the jury panel had already been selected and sworn.

The plaintiff relied on survey evidence suggesting Canadians hold strong views on abortion and argued that questioning jurors was necessary to identify potential prejudice.

The court held that civil juries are presumed capable of setting aside personal views through the trial process and judicial instructions, and that there was insufficient evidence of widespread bias that would justify such questioning.

The court emphasized the discretionary nature of challenges for cause in civil proceedings and warned that permitting such questioning could create delays and open the floodgates to inquiries on many personal characteristics.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 37.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to set aside a registrar’s order dismissing the action as abandoned under Rule 48.15 and to extend the time for service of the statement of claim.

The court reviewed the applicable principles governing motions to set aside administrative dismissal orders, including the Reid factors addressing explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness of the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.

Although the plaintiff failed to provide satisfactory explanations for significant litigation delay and for the delay in bringing the motion, the court accepted that the missed deadline resulted from inadvertence and found that the plaintiff rebutted the presumption of prejudice despite the expiry of the limitation period.

Given the preference for resolving disputes on their merits and the absence of demonstrated actual prejudice to the defendants, the registrar’s dismissal order was set aside and the time for service extended.

The defendants were awarded costs of the motion.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing her human rights application for failing to rectify deficiencies.

The request was filed past the 30-day deadline.

The Tribunal granted an extension of time, noting the applicant had recently retained a representative and acted diligently thereafter.

The Tribunal also granted the reconsideration request, finding that the applicant's previous lack of legal representation and difficulties understanding the process outweighed the public interest in finality, especially since the application had not been heard on its merits.

The applicant sought expenses following a mixed-success arbitration decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator found that success was divided on the issues that proceeded to hearing, which would normally result in each party bearing their own expenses.

However, because the applicant withdrew several claims two days before the hearing, putting the insurer to unnecessary expense, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's 'costs thrown away' fixed at $400.00.

Following a decision denying the applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits, the arbitrator considered the issue of expenses.

The insurer sought its expenses based on its complete success and negative credibility findings against the applicant.

The applicant argued that lack of success does not automatically result in an expense award and noted the novel issues regarding causation and disability involving three separate accidents.

The arbitrator found that while the insurer was successful and credibility was an issue, the novelty of the issues required a decision.

The arbitrator ordered each party to bear its own expenses.

The applicant sought legal expenses following an arbitration decision where he was awarded $5,067 plus interest for medical services, but denied caregiver and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer argued both parties should bear their own costs due to divided success.

The arbitrator found the applicant achieved a significant degree of success and had served a reasonable offer to settle for $10,000 inclusive of costs, which he beat at arbitration.

The arbitrator also noted the insurer's late production of surveillance evidence prolonged the hearing.

The applicant was awarded $7,266.65 in legal expenses and disbursements.

Following an arbitration decision where the applicant was partially successful in claiming statutory accident benefits, both parties sought their expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's success was significant to her, and denying expenses would undermine the consumer protection purpose of the Insurance Act.

The applicant was awarded her expenses at the Legal Aid rate, totaling $6,092.02 for the arbitration and $500.00 for the expense hearing.

The insurer's claim for expenses was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits, the insurer sought its expenses for the arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's claims were completely unmeritorious and that he was entirely unsuccessful.

Applying the criteria under the Expense Regulation, the arbitrator awarded the insurer its expenses, fixed at $5,000 plus GST, noting that the insurer had kept an unmeritorious preliminary issue alive for strategic purposes.

The insurer sought an order for expenses following an arbitration hearing regarding statutory accident benefits, arguing that it was substantially successful and therefore entitled to its expenses.

The insured person argued that the parties should bear their own expenses given her limited means and mixed success.

The arbitrator rejected a 'winner take all' approach to expenses under the Statutory Accident Benefits scheme, noting it is consumer protection legislation.

Because the insured person raised a legitimate issue and achieved some limited success, the arbitrator ordered that each party bear their own expenses.