Alexander Walter Demeo

The defendant brought a motion in Small Claims Court seeking to stay the plaintiff’s action or alternatively transfer the proceeding from Thunder Bay to the Toronto Small Claims Court.

The dispute concerned the alleged failure to return an insurance deposit under a contract following the termination of a franchise relationship.

The court considered Rule 6 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court and the governing principle in Rule 1.03 emphasizing the just, most expeditious, and least expensive determination of proceedings.

The judge concluded the dispute primarily involved interpretation of a single written agreement, likely requiring minimal witness evidence.

The defendant failed to establish that the balance of convenience substantially favoured a transfer of venue, particularly given concerns about access to justice and the advanced stage of the proceeding in Thunder Bay.

The appellant hired the 13-year-old respondent to perform chores at his cottage.

The respondent negligently started a fire while trying to refuel a lawn mower, causing $285,000 in damage.

The appellant's insurer brought a subrogated claim against the respondent in tort and contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that an employee is generally not liable to indemnify an employer for ordinary negligence.

Applying the Anns test, the court found that while the harm was foreseeable, the parties' relationship lacked sufficient proximity to make liability just and fair, and residual policy considerations weighed against imposing a duty of care.

The appellant tripped and fell on a ramp while exiting the respondent's store, sustaining injuries including a torn rotator cuff.

At trial, the judge awarded $13,598 in damages after finding the appellant 50% contributorily negligent and concluding her shoulder injury was not caused by the fall.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by ignoring medical and lay evidence regarding causation and misapplying the principles of causation and apportionment.

The Court reduced the appellant's contributory negligence to 15% and reassessed damages, awarding a total of $104,044.41.

The appellants, executors of the estate of a deceased nurse, sued her former employer for negligence in administering a group life insurance plan, resulting in the denial of enhanced benefits.

The trial judge found the employer negligent but dismissed the action, concluding the dispute was governed by the collective agreement and thus subject to arbitration.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the essential character of the dispute did not arise from the collective agreement, which only required the employer to pay premiums and provide an information booklet.

Judgment was granted in favour of the appellants for the value of the enhanced benefits.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while working and initially claimed workers' compensation benefits.

He later sought accident benefits from his automobile insurer, which delayed processing his claim.

At arbitration, he was awarded outstanding benefits and a $65,000 special award for the insurer's unreasonable delay, but the arbitrator ordered interest only from the dates formal applications or re-elections were made.

On appeal, the appellant argued interest should run from his initial contact with the insurer due to its failure to provide forms and information.

The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the arbitrator's determination of when the benefits became overdue under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, noting the special award already penalized the insurer for its delays.

In a supplementary arbitration decision, the applicant sought reimbursement for medical and rehabilitation expenses initially funded by the Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer had reimbursed most of the amount but withheld $2,901.54, arguing it was covered by OHIP.

The arbitrator found no settlement had been reached between the parties and ordered the insurer to pay the remaining $2,901.54, as it failed to provide sufficient evidence of OHIP coverage.

The arbitrator also awarded interest on the overdue amounts from October 1, 1998, and set the applicant's counsel fee rate at $125 per hour for the arbitration proceeding.

The applicant sought an award of his arbitration expenses following a successful claim for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer argued the applicant was only entitled to half his expenses due to partial success.

The arbitrator found the applicant was largely successful, presented his case efficiently, and raised novel and complex issues.

Applying the criteria in s. 12(2) of Ontario Regulation 664, the arbitrator awarded the applicant all of his reasonably incurred arbitration expenses.

Both parties appealed an arbitration order concerning the calculation of Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and Loss of Earning Capacity Benefits (LECBs) following a motorcycle accident.

The insured challenged the arbitrator's treatment of vacation pay and the refusal to order a special award for delayed payments.

The insurer challenged the finding that the insured's residual earning capacity was zero due to a lack of available part-time employment in his community.

The Director's Delegate allowed the insured's appeal in part, recalculating the gross annual income using the 'income when received' approach for vacation pay, but dismissed the claim for a special award.

The insurer's appeal regarding residual earning capacity was dismissed, affirming that part-time employment availability must be specifically established.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his motorcycle and applied for statutory accident benefits.

Disputes arose regarding the calculation of his income replacement benefits (IRBs), the indexation of his pre-accident earning capacity (PEC) for loss of earning capacity benefits (LECBs), his residual earning capacity (REC), and his entitlement to a special award.

The arbitrator determined that the applicant's gross annual income should be calculated based on the 52 weeks prior to the accident, including accrued vacation pay.

The arbitrator also held that the applicant's PEC must be indexed before calculating LECBs.

Furthermore, the arbitrator rejected the Designated Assessment Centre's (DAC) finding that the applicant could work as a part-time sales representative, concluding that such employment did not exist in the Thunder Bay area, and deemed his REC to be zero.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not found to be unreasonable.

The appellant, a teenager injured in a motor vehicle accident, appealed an arbitrator's decision denying her claim for ongoing weekly statutory accident benefits.

The appellant argued that she sustained a psychological or mental injury in the accident that continuously disabled her.

The arbitrator had concluded that the accident was not a significant factor in the development of her psychological condition, preferring the respondent's expert evidence over the appellant's.

On appeal, the Director of Arbitrations found that the arbitrator properly weighed the conflicting medical and psychological evidence, including the appellant's pre-existing behavioural issues and family circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed, and the arbitration order was confirmed.

The applicant sought reimbursement of a $16.59 television rental expense incurred during a hospitalization three years after a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim, finding no evidence of a causal link between the hospitalization and the accident.

The arbitrator also declined to award expenses to the applicant and warned that her multiple mediation applications and threats of small claims actions bordered on an abuse of process, though an assessment fee was not imposed due to an undertaking to cease further actions.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought weekly benefits and child care benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Insurer terminated benefits, and the parties proceeded to arbitration.

The arbitrator found that while the Applicant suffered pain and had to modify her activities, she was not substantially unable to perform her essential tasks as a homemaker.

The claim for further weekly benefits was dismissed, though the Applicant was awarded her expenses for the arbitration.

The applicant, a 15-year-old high school student, was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident.

She received weekly income benefits until January 1993.

The applicant claimed she suffered a brain injury in the accident that caused severe psychiatric and behavioural problems, entitling her to further benefits.

The insurer argued her psychiatric difficulties were not caused by the accident but were the result of a pre-existing condition, likely bipolar disorder.

The arbitrator found that the applicant sustained at most a mild head injury and that the accident was not a significant contributing factor to her subsequent severe mental illness.

The claim for ongoing weekly benefits and a special award was dismissed, though the applicant was awarded her arbitration expenses.