Andrew M. Lee

The applicant, acting through a litigation guardian under power of attorney due to neurocognitive disability, sought court approval under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for a SABS settlement arising from a 2017 traffic accident.

The settlement had been negotiated by a licensed paralegal rather than a lawyer, raising a procedural issue under subrule 7.08(4)(b) which requires an affidavit from the lawyer who acted for the litigation guardian.

The court concluded that Rule 7.08 does not apply to SABS settlements because the Insurance Act confers exclusive jurisdiction over SABS disputes on the Licence Appeal Tribunal, and paragraph 3 of subrule 1.02(1) excludes the Rules of Civil Procedure where a statute provides a different procedure.

The application was dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, but the court clarified the dismissal does not invalidate or disapprove the settlement.

An application by a litigation guardian to approve a settlement on behalf of her son, a person under disability, was dismissed.

The settlement for statutory accident benefits was reached almost four years prior, but the materials for judicial approval were significantly delayed.

By the time the application was before the court, the minor had turned 18, and his consent, required under Rule 7.08(4)(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, was not obtained or filed, leading to the dismissal of the application.

This endorsement outlines a case management order for five consolidated actions arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court, acting as case management judge, set a timetable for the remaining procedural steps, including the completion of examinations for discovery, answering undertakings, conducting defence medical examinations, and scheduling a mediation.

The order also directed counsel to circulate a draft consent order for trial of the actions together and to advise on the continuation of an action against a specific insurer.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's multidisciplinary assessment reports, which found no objective physical or psychological impairment preventing the applicant from engaging in her pre-accident activities, and noted evidence of symptom exaggeration.

The applicant's failure to produce pre-accident disability records further undermined her claim.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from her insurer.

The insurer denied a physiotherapy treatment plan, terminated housekeeping benefits, and refused to pay for several medical assessments.

At arbitration, the arbitrator found the physiotherapy treatment plan to be reasonable and necessary, rejecting the insurer's DAC assessor whose opinion improperly relied on vehicle damage estimates.

The arbitrator also reinstated the housekeeping benefits, finding the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident chores, and preferred the evidence of the applicant and her family over the insurer's occupational therapist.

The arbitrator awarded the cost of one orthopaedic assessment but denied two others because the applicant failed to follow the required pre-approval process.

Interest was awarded on the overdue housekeeping benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed a severe psychiatric disorder, regressing to a child-like state.

She applied for catastrophic impairment designation and various statutory accident benefits, which the insurer denied, arguing her condition was pre-existing and unrelated to the accident.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating physicians and experts, finding that the accident materially contributed to her regressed state and that she suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant was awarded post-104 week attendant care, housekeeping, and income replacement benefits, along with interest and arbitration expenses.

The insurer's claim for repayment of a without prejudice advance was dismissed.