Aryan Kamyab

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

The respondent argued the application was statute-barred because the applicant failed to dispute a denial within the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's correspondence did not constitute a clear and unequivocal denial, as the applicant had not yet submitted an OCF-3 to claim the benefit.

A pre-emptive denial does not trigger the limitation period.

The preliminary issue was resolved in favour of the applicant, allowing the application to proceed.

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 written submissions or any further correspondence by the deadline.

The respondent requested the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The adjudicator proceeded with the hearing under s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet her burden of demonstrating entitlement to the disputed treatment plans, an award, or interest.

The plaintiff, Vida Mansori, brought a claim under the Occupiers' Liability Act after slipping and falling in a public washroom at a condominium building managed by the defendants.

The plaintiff suffered significant injuries.

The court considered expert evidence on the slip resistance of the washroom tiles and the defendants' maintenance schedule.

The court found that the washroom floor was not inherently unsafe and that the defendants had taken reasonable steps to ensure safety, including regular cleaning and security checks.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence on the part of the defendants, dismissing the action.

Damages were provisionally assessed at $100,000 had liability been found.

The parties were unable to resolve the costs of a motion and cross-motion.

The moving defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the plaintiffs' claim lacked merit and delayed the proceeding.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding no sanctionable conduct by the plaintiffs.

After considering divided success, excessive hours claimed, and unsubstantiated disbursements, the court fixed costs payable by the plaintiffs to the moving defendants at $10,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendants, Mohammad Kazem Abazari and Master Venus Inc., moved for an order to pay out mortgage proceeds held in trust and for security for costs against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs cross-moved for the funds to be paid to them or preserved.

The court found that the prior interim preservation order had expired and the plaintiffs failed to establish the criteria for a new preservation order under Rule 45.02, particularly a serious issue to be tried regarding their claim to the specific fund.

The court dismissed the defendants' request for security for costs but stayed the plaintiffs' action pending full payment of an outstanding costs award from a prior unsuccessful motion.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment in a mortgage enforcement action, the plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $22,126.11.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $101,830.30, arguing the plaintiff prolonged the action by taking an incorrect legal position on the applicable interest rate.

The court found the plaintiff was prima facie entitled to costs but reduced the award to $13,060 because the plaintiff's insistence on an unsustainable interest rate prolonged the proceedings and hindered settlement.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce a mortgage claim against the defendants.

The defendants had defaulted on both a first and second mortgage on their property.

The plaintiff, as second mortgagee, bought out the first mortgage to protect its interests.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff breached its duty of honest contractual performance by allegedly misleading them about its intentions regarding the first mortgage.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, rejecting the defendants' bad faith arguments and fixing the outstanding mortgage balance at $2,472,567.91.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits and several treatment plans for physiotherapy, Botox, and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove the disputed benefits were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors and the applicant's treating neurologist, which did not support the proposed treatments.

Claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed as no benefits were payable and there was no evidence of unreasonable delay.

The defendant moved to set aside an ex parte charging order obtained by his former legal counsel for unpaid fees.

The defendant argued the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure and withdrew services, both of which the court rejected.

However, the court found the plaintiff commenced the proceeding before the mandatory 30-day waiting period under s. 2(1) of the Solicitors Act had expired, rendering it a technical nullity.

The charging order was set aside, but enforcement was suspended for 60 days to allow the plaintiff to regularize the proceeding.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a motion for security for costs, which was resolved on consent.

The Defendants, Mehran Amini and Hanif Joshaghani, sought $12,471.52 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the Plaintiff, 5001398 Ontario Corp., proposed $2,500.

The court found that exceptional circumstances warranted a costs award despite the consent resolution, as deferring costs facilitated settlement.

While acknowledging the Plaintiff's delay in agreeing to post security contributed to the litigation costs, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the conduct did not meet the threshold for reprehensible behaviour.

The court also considered the Defendants' contribution to delay and the proportionality of counsel's docketed hours.

Ultimately, costs were fixed at $4,500 on a partial indemnity scale, payable by the Plaintiff to the Defendants.

The applicant was injured in three separate motor vehicle accidents and sought a non-earner benefit and medical benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant failed to attend section 44 insurer examinations.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding with the Tribunal application due to this non-attendance.

The Tribunal found that the respondent made reasonable attempts to accommodate the applicant's scheduling requests and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his non-attendance.

The Tribunal held that the applicant is barred under section 55(2) of the Schedule from proceeding with his application until he attends the required insurer examinations.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing the action for delay.

The action arose from a motor vehicle accident and was dismissed after the plaintiff failed to set it down for trial by the deadline in a status hearing order.

The court applied the Reid factors and found that the delay was largely due to coverage issues involving one of the defendants and the need to add third parties.

The court concluded that the plaintiff's explanation was adequate, the failure to meet the deadline was inadvertent, the motion was brought in a timely manner, and the defendants would not suffer actual prejudice.

The motion was granted and the dismissal order was set aside.