Antonio Meringolo

The plaintiffs, eight long-term employees, brought a motion for default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action after the defendants closed their manufacturing facility and relocated it without notice.

The court found that the defendants wrongfully dismissed the plaintiffs and discriminated against them based on their age.

The court awarded damages for unpaid wages, statutory and common law notice, loss of benefits, human rights breaches, and aggravated damages.

The corporate defendants and the personal defendant were found jointly and severally liable under the common employer doctrine and the oppression remedy.

The Plaintiff sought costs at an interlocutory stage against the Defendant Thi Thu Lee (Le) following successful motions, including a Mareva injunction, reconveyance of properties, and payment of funds into court.

The Defendant argued costs should be deferred until the main issue of the Plaintiff's capacity was decided and that the amounts sought were excessive.

The court found the Plaintiff largely successful and entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $43,071.37.

However, the question of which defendant(s) should bear these costs was deferred for further submissions.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her application for statutory accident benefits, including catastrophic impairment assessments.

She argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness, made errors of fact by ignoring medical evidence, and erred in law regarding the causation test and the interpretation of the Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to properly submit her medical evidence for the written hearing, consented to the hearing format, and that the Tribunal correctly applied the 'but-for' test for causation.

The Tribunal affirmed that causation must be established before an insurer is obligated to pay for catastrophic impairment assessments under section 25(1)5 of the Schedule.

The applicant sought funding for catastrophic impairment assessments following two motor vehicle accidents in 2014 and 2016.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the assessments were reasonable and necessary, as the medical evidence, including clinical notes from treating physicians, showed a history of pre-existing cognitive issues, depression, and anxiety that contradicted the applicant's neuropsychological expert.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for an award and interest, finding no evidence of unreasonable delay by the insurer.

The Co-operators General Insurance Company brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Annette Brooks, to attend a second independent medical examination with a physiatrist.

The plaintiff opposed, offering to withdraw her own physiatry report.

The court granted the motion, finding that the examination was warranted to ensure a fair determination of the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, despite the plaintiff's offer and the late stage of litigation, as the plaintiff's physiatry report was relied upon by another expert and the proposed examination was not duplicative.