Allan S. Blott Q.C.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover $66,547 in litigation loans plus interest from the defendant.

The defendant's counsel requested an adjournment, citing recent concerns that the defendant may lack legal capacity to provide instructions.

Although the evidence of incapacity was weak, the court adjourned the motion to allow the defendant limited time to provide additional evidence of incapacity and respond to the motion.

The applicant sought reinstatement of income replacement benefits that were suspended by the respondent insurer after the applicant failed to provide requested medical documentation.

The Tribunal found that the insurer was entitled to suspend benefits under section 33(6) of the Schedule during the period of non-compliance.

However, because the applicant eventually provided the requested disability certificate and evidence of ongoing treatment on March 24, 2017, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to recommence payment of the benefits from that date.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the 104-week mark, at which point the respondent terminated them.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for ongoing benefits, arguing he suffered a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment due to physical and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's medical evidence failed to address the more stringent post-104 week test and lacked specific diagnoses.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's expert evidence that the applicant could return to work and had alternative vocational options.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a digital motion x-ray exam, assessments, and transportation expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to prove the digital x-ray and assessments were reasonable and necessary, relying instead on the respondent's insurer examinations which found no accident-related abnormalities.

The claim for transportation expenses was denied because the applicant failed to submit a required treatment plan.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied as there was no evidence of unreasonable or bad faith conduct by the applicant.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge identified and applied the correct three-part test and reasonably concluded that the appellant failed on all elements.

It was not in the interest of justice to set aside the default judgment.