Ashley R. Gnys

The court dispensed with the requirement for litigation guardians residing in China to file affidavits in support of court approval motions for settlements involving parties under disability, due to legal and logistical barriers under Chinese law.

The decision reviews the collaborative resolution of liability and settlement issues following a major motor coach accident, the apportionment of limited insurance funds, and the purpose of the court approval process under Ontario law.

The court found that requiring affidavits would be disproportionate and unnecessary, and that the interests of justice are served by waiving the requirement.

The Applicant sought financial compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical and psychological injuries sustained during an assault at his workplace.

The offender was convicted of assault causing bodily harm.

The Board found the Applicant was a victim of a crime of violence and awarded compensation for pain and suffering, loss of income, and various medical and treatment expenses, totaling $22,290.00.

The applicant, a New York resident, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Ontario.

The respondent insurer paid New York no-fault benefits but failed to advise the applicant of her right to claim more generous Ontario statutory accident benefits.

Years later, the applicant sought retroactive Ontario benefits.

The insurer argued the claim was time-barred and that the applicant had elected New York benefits.

The arbitrator held that the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay because the insurer breached its statutory duty to provide information about Ontario benefits.

The arbitrator found no valid election was made and the insurer was bound by its Power of Attorney and Undertaking to provide the more generous Ontario benefits.

The insurer was permitted to set off the New York benefits already paid but was statute-barred from claiming an alleged overpayment.

The appellant was involved in a minor rear-end collision and subsequently claimed disabling chronic pain.

At trial, the jury initially awarded zero for general damages, explaining they believed an insurance settlement had already compensated the appellant.

The trial judge instructed them to reconsider only general damages, which they reassessed at $50,000.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge should have instructed the jury to reconsider all heads of damage and that the overall assessment was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury's verdict was reasonable given the conflicting evidence on the cause and extent of the injuries.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits before returning to work.

The insurer terminated benefits and argued the applicant was barred from further benefits under subsection 16(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because she worked for more than 90 days.

The arbitrator held that subsection 16(2) does not bar an insured from receiving further benefits, but only affects the evidentiary presumption of ongoing eligibility.

The arbitrator also determined that the disability entitlement test under subsection 12(5) refers to 156 weeks of disability, and that post-accident employment income does not delay or interrupt the running of this period.

The applicant, a taxi driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them, alleging overpayment based on fraudulent income records.

The arbitrator found that the applicant remained substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her employment and was therefore entitled to ongoing weekly income benefits.

However, the arbitrator accepted the insurer's accounting evidence that the applicant's pre-accident financial records were not genuine.

Consequently, her benefits were reduced to the statutory minimum of $185.60 per week, and she was ordered to repay the overpayment to the insurer pursuant to section 27 of the Schedule.