Arthur Robert Camporese

Following the allowance of the appeal, the Court of Appeal requested submissions on costs for the motion, which had not been addressed at the hearing.

The parties reached an agreement on costs.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the appellant $4,000 all-inclusive, in accordance with the parties' agreement.

The plaintiffs brought a constitutional challenge against provisions of the Insurance Act, alleging the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) lacked adjudicative independence.

They obtained a motion judge's order under Rule 30.10 requiring the LAT to produce hundreds of internal records.

The LAT appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in her application of Rule 30.10.

The records were not relevant to a material issue because adjudicative independence in a specific case does not impact the constitutional validity of the tribunal's jurisdiction under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, nor does it engage s. 7 or s. 15 of the Charter.

The Court also clarified that deliberative secrecy applies to administrative tribunals to the same extent as courts.

The applicant was injured when he was assaulted and dragged by a vehicle while attempting to repossess it.

He did not notify the insurer of his intention to apply for accident benefits until over a year later, after consulting with legal counsel.

The insurer denied the claim based on the failure to notify within the 7-day time limit under s. 32(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay under s. 34, as the incident was an unconventional accident and the applicant was unaware he had access to accident benefits.

The Tribunal concluded that the hardship to the applicant outweighed the prejudice to the insurer, and the applicant was not barred from proceeding with his claim.

Following a consent judgment resolving an action for unpaid nursing home fees, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis against the deceased's son personally and the estate.

The son had successfully maintained he was not the estate trustee.

The court found mixed success on the summary judgment motion and awarded no costs for it.

For the main action, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs against the estate only, finding no reprehensible conduct by the son to warrant substantial indemnity costs or personal liability.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied benefits and closed the file after the applicant failed to submit the application within 30 days.

The Tribunal found the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay, as she was receiving in-patient treatment for severe alcohol use disorder and withdrawal symptoms.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal held that the applicant failed to prove her pre-existing conditions prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

Relying on the insurer's section 44 physiatry report, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for interest and a special award were dismissed.

The appellants appealed an order striking most of their tort, constitutional, and human rights claims arising from accident benefits assessments, surveillance, and the administration of statutory accident benefits after a motor vehicle accident.

The Court of Appeal held that the battery, intrusion upon seclusion, abuse of process, and vicarious liability claims were properly struck, and that the challenges to ss. 55 and 19(3) of the SABS were properly treated as an abuse of process because the matters had been or could have been pursued before the LAT.

However, the court found the motion judge erred in concluding that no breach of contract had been pleaded against the insurer and in treating the SABS as outside the insurance contract.

The appeal was allowed only to permit the insured appellant to amend and properly plead breach of contract and breach of good faith claims against the insurer.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claim for outstanding attendant care benefits, and also brought a motion for the adjudicator to recuse himself due to alleged bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias or institutional bias.

However, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration request in part, finding a material breach of procedural fairness because the adjudicator had reframed the issues by failing to determine the reasonable and necessary quantum of the attendant care benefit, which had been an issue at the initial hearing.

Rehearing the issue based on the existing record, the Tribunal weighed competing occupational therapy assessments and concluded the applicant was entitled to an attendant care benefit of $1,962.55 per month on an ongoing basis.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to an income replacement benefit.

She argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by allowing the respondent's late motion to strike her reply evidence, made errors of fact regarding her pre-accident employment, and sought to introduce new adjuster log notes.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the applicant had ample opportunity to respond to the motion.

The adjudicator also found no errors of fact based on the admitted evidence and declined to admit the new log notes because the applicant failed to demonstrate they could not have been obtained previously.

The applicant appealed and sought judicial review of Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions dismissing her claims for income replacement benefits and medical expenses, and ordering the destruction of internal tribunal documents she submitted as evidence of institutional bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's determination that the insurer's examination notices complied with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's orders striking the applicant's reply evidence and directing the destruction and non-dissemination of internal documents, concluding that the Tribunal reasonably exercised its jurisdiction to control its process and properly applied the doctrines of solicitor-client privilege and deliberative secrecy.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming attendant care benefits (ACB) for services provided by her daughter and husband.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the services were 'incurred' under s. 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The evidence lacked sufficient detail regarding the daughter's hours and tasks, and failed to establish that either family member sustained an economic loss as a result of providing care.

Consequently, claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence, nor did they request an extension.

Pursuant to section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence.

Finding that the applicant failed to meet their burden of demonstrating entitlement to the disputed benefits, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The plaintiffs sued multiple defendants, including an insurer and its subcontractors, for various torts arising from the handling of a statutory accident benefits claim.

The defendants brought Rule 21 motions to strike the claims for lack of jurisdiction and disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

The court refused to strike the action for lack of jurisdiction because of an outstanding constitutional challenge to the Insurance Act.

However, the court struck all tort claims against the moving defendants, except for the claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, finding it was plain and obvious they could not succeed.

The court also struck the plaintiff's constitutional challenges to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule as an abuse of process.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained an accident-related psychological impairment, removing her from the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal awarded two psychological treatment plans and an income replacement benefit, finding that the exacerbation of her pre-accident sleep issues caused a substantial and complete inability to perform her pre-accident employment as a postal clerk.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed, but interest on overdue payments was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice while exiting a pickup truck he had taken for a test drive.

The respondent insurer denied benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the two-part purpose and causation test, finding that exiting a vehicle is an ordinary and well-known activity, and that the use or operation of the vehicle was a direct cause of the injuries.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was involved in an accident and ordered the application to proceed to a hearing on the substantive issues.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her psychological injuries did not meet the definition of an accident and were subject to the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant argued that her psychological trauma was triggered by viewing a dashcam video of the motor vehicle accident.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the initial adjudicator erred in law by applying the test for whether an accident occurred rather than the test for whether the accident caused the psychological impairment.

A rehearing of all issues by a different adjudicator was ordered.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found the respondent insurer did not unreasonably delay the payment of medical or rehabilitation benefits and dismissed the applicant's claims.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact, violated procedural fairness, and that new evidence was available.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold under Rule 18.2.

The Vice-Chair also struck portions of the applicant's reply submissions that improperly raised allegations of bias for the first time.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to Income Replacement Benefits.

The applicant argued that new evidence demonstrated the respondent failed to comply with PIPEDA and the Schedule, that the Tribunal made errors of law and fact regarding the necessity of functional capacity examinations and the adequacy of IE notices, and that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal struck the applicant's bias arguments raised for the first time in reply submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the proposed new evidence did not meet the test for admission, the Tribunal did not err in its interpretation of the Schedule or its assessment of the IE notices, and the applicant failed to establish any reasonable apprehension of bias.

This decision addresses the costs of a dismissed motion brought by the plaintiff, United Mennonite Home for the Aged, to amend its pleadings to name Dan Gordon in his personal capacity.

The defendant, Dan Gordon, was entirely successful in opposing the motion and sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendant, reducing the claimed amount by $1,000 due to the defendant's conduct unnecessarily lengthening the proceeding.

The court affirmed that success is a presumptive factor in costs awards and that a charitable organization's limited ability to pay is irrelevant when they initiated the motion.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that found he was not involved in an accident.

The applicant argued that his failure to file submissions for the preliminary issue hearing was due to inadvertence and that dismissing his application without his submissions was unfair.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that inadvertently missing a deadline does not constitute new evidence or grounds for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The appellant/applicant sought to appeal and judicially review interlocutory decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding the striking out and destruction of certain evidence.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, as there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory LAT decision.

The court also dismissed the application for judicial review regarding the evidentiary rulings due to prematurity, but permitted the judicial review to proceed regarding the orders requiring the destruction of documents.