Andrew P Suboch

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

The matter was scheduled for a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file submissions and filed his evidence brief late without explanation or consent.

The respondent brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to establish entitlement to the benefits claimed and dismissed the application.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to non-earner benefits, physiotherapy, and psychological and chronic pain assessments.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she sustained a concussion, psychological impairment, or chronic pain caused by the accident that would remove her from the MIG, noting significant reliability issues with her self-reporting to medical experts.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant failed to provide requested employment and medical documents.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not comply with section 33 requests for information without a reasonable explanation, disentitling him to IRBs.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence demonstrating a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The claim for physiotherapy was dismissed as statute-barred under the two-year limitation period.

The defendant, 961557 Ontario Ltd., operating as "The Crooked Cue" was charged with failing to comply with an emergency order under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act for operating an indoor dining area during COVID-19 restrictions.

The prosecution alleged the establishment was not an "outdoor dining area" as required by O. Reg. 263/20.

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily because no clear, written regulatory order was established, and the interpretation of "outdoor dining area" by public health officials was subjective, inconsistent, and based on fluid guidelines rather than the regulation's plain wording.

The charge was dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits, medical benefits for physiotherapy, and the cost of examinations for mental health and chronic pain assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's expert reports due to their reliance on self-reporting without a Somali interpreter and failure to include signed expert duty acknowledgments.

The respondent's section 44 assessments, which utilized an interpreter and found symptom magnification and minor injuries, were preferred.

The defendant, 961557 Ontario Ltd. (The Crooked Cue), was charged with failing to comply with an emergency order by operating an indoor dining area during Stage 2 COVID-19 closures, which only permitted outdoor dining.

The defendant brought a motion for non-suit, arguing the prosecution failed to adduce evidence proving the establishment was not an outdoor dining area.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was sufficient admissible evidence, direct and circumstantial, which if believed, could reasonably support a finding of guilt.

The court clarified that the test for a non-suit motion does not permit weighing evidence or assessing credibility, distinguishing it from the s.11(b) analysis for delay under R. v. Jordan.

The defendant brought a motion that was ultimately deemed abandoned after the plaintiff agreed to limit his claims to policy limits.

A dispute also arose regarding who could cross-examine the defendant, leading to thrown away costs.

The court awarded the plaintiff $6,262.26 in costs thrown away, representing approximately half of the fees sought plus disbursements, noting that the motion was not certain to succeed and the plaintiff was put to unnecessary expense.