Amanda Colarossi

Following a successful 12-day jury trial where the plaintiffs were awarded $2,170,188 in damages (net $1,749,690.54), the court addressed the parties' dispute over costs.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs until their offer to settle and substantial indemnity thereafter, arguing they "beat" their offer.

The defendants sought reductions for costs related to statutory accident benefits (SABS) litigation, an interlocutory motion to add a party, and a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) hearing, as well as certain disbursements.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 factors, fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $478,750.00 (inclusive of HST and disbursements) and allowed the defendants a $5,000 deduction for the collateral benefits motion, resulting in a net award of $473,750.00 to the plaintiffs.

The decision disallowed costs for the WSIAT hearing, the interlocutory motion, and certain disbursements (meals, courier, copying, adverse costs insurance), while partially allowing SABS-related costs due to the benefit derived by the defendants.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a physiotherapy treatment plan, which the respondent insurer denied.

The adjudicator found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating physician over the respondent's orthopaedic assessor, who admitted lacking expertise in chronic widespread pain.

The adjudicator also rejected the respondent's argument that funds raised through a GoFundMe account constituted an 'insurance plan or other plan' under s. 47(2) of the Schedule.

The applicant was awarded the treatment plan and interest, but her claim for a bad faith award was dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.

This addendum clarifies and corrects the court's previous Reasons released on December 5, 2023, regarding the application of a statutory deductible to a Family Law Act award.

Following a jury trial, the court had initially misunderstood the parties' agreement, stating no deductible applied to Sandra McCurdy's $65,000 award.

This addendum rectifies that, confirming the award is subject to the statutory deductible of $22,183.63, resulting in a revised total net judgment for the plaintiffs.

Following a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court determined whether long-term disability benefits received by the plaintiff from a private Manulife policy were deductible from the jury's award for past and future income loss.

The court held that the Manulife benefits met the criteria under s. 3(7)(d) of Ontario Regulation 34/10, as they were offered to employed persons and the maximum benefit was calculated with reference to employment income.

Consequently, the benefits were deemed payments under an income continuation benefit plan, making them deductible from the income loss award and subject to assignment under s. 267.8 of the Insurance Act.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

A written hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to provide any submissions or evidence by the deadlines imposed by the Tribunal.

Given the applicant's failure to meet her evidentiary burden, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding she had not established that her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline or that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that found she was not entitled to claim accident benefits because she failed to prove her re-election to sue in tort was not made primarily to receive benefits.

The applicant argued new evidence, an affidavit from her counsel regarding settlement negotiations, warranted reconsideration under Rule 18.2(d).

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the evidence was not new as it could have been obtained previously, and even if it were new, it would not have affected the outcome because it did not provide evidence of the applicant's mindset at the time of her re-election.

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

The respondent denied the claims, asserting the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal but failed to file submissions or evidence.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet his burden of proof to establish his injuries warranted treatment beyond the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits and sought repayment of previously paid IRB, arguing the applicant was excluded under s. 31(1)(a)(i) of the Schedule because he knew or ought reasonably to have known he was operating the vehicle without valid insurance.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony that he believed he had purchased valid insurance from a 'broker' to be not credible, given his prior experience with insurance and the suspicious circumstances of the transaction.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for IRB, interest, and a special award, and ordered the applicant to repay $19,177.60 in IRB to the respondent.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a waitress and usher.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, including reports from an orthopaedic surgeon and a chiropractor, persuasive in establishing her functional limitations due to a fractured wrist, shoulder strain, and back pain.

The Tribunal placed little weight on the insurer's assessments, noting they were incomplete and failed to account for pain during testing.

The applicant was awarded IRBs of $315.27 per week for the disputed period, plus interest.