Ashu Ismail

The appellants, Joseph Campisi and Campisi LLP (lawyers), appealed a lower court decision that reopened a contingency fee agreement (CFRA) under the Solicitors Act, declared it unenforceable, ordered an assessment of fees, and ordered repayment of $150,000 for excessive fees related to an Accident Benefit Claim.

The Court of Appeal confirmed jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The lawyers challenged the finding that the Accident Benefit Claim fee was "excessive and unreasonable" and the costs order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's interpretation of the Solicitors Act (ss. 24 and 25) or in her assessment of the reasonableness of the fees, which considered factors beyond just hourly rates.

The costs award was also upheld.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired.

She argued the adjudicator failed to apply the correct causation test regarding her pre-existing disability and cherry-picked evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness or significant error of law or fact.

The adjudicator held that the original decision properly considered the applicant's pre- and post-accident functional abilities and that assigning weight to evidence is an intrinsic function of the Tribunal, not an error.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the first claim because the applicant had previously withdrawn it and failed to notify the insurer of a renewed dispute.

The Tribunal also found the second claim was not properly submitted.

In the alternative, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to prove the attendant care expenses were 'incurred' under the Schedule, as the care was provided by his wife, a retired personal support worker who was not employed at the time of the accident and did not sustain an economic loss.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing his claim for a catastrophic impairment designation following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the LAT erred in law by failing to properly assess his mental and pain disorders and by ignoring key psychiatric evidence.

The LAT had subsequently issued a reconsideration decision that supplemented its original reasons and addressed these alleged errors, concluding that even if it had erred, the result would not change.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT acted within its jurisdiction under its reconsideration rules to review the evidence in light of alleged legal errors and confirm its original decision.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision that time-barred her application for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The LAT found the two-year limitation period expired because the appellant received the denial letter on the day it was written.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the LAT erred in law by making a material finding of fact without evidence and by reversing the onus of proof onto the appellant to show when the letter was received.

The matter was remitted to the LAT for a new hearing.

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

During the hearing, several preliminary motions were heard.

The Tribunal excluded the respondent's late-filed catastrophic assessment reports and denied the applicant's request to add catastrophic determination as an issue.

The Tribunal ordered the disclosure of improperly redacted log notes, finding that 'client-to-client' discussions did not automatically attract litigation privilege.

The Tribunal awarded $2,000 in costs against the respondent for bad faith conduct in failing to comply with previous production orders and improperly redacting documents.

However, the Tribunal declined to state a case for contempt of court.

Following the denial of an adjournment request, the applicant withdrew her application.

The appellant, Shelly Legault, brought a motion within her appeal against TD General Insurance Company.

The motion sought relief from filing all trial transcripts for the appeal record and leave to amend her notice of appeal to include a mid-trial ruling and a costs decision.

The court dismissed the request to be relieved from filing all transcripts, agreeing with the respondent that the full record was necessary given the appellant sought a new trial.

However, the court granted leave to amend the notice of appeal to specify grounds regarding the payment of non-expert witnesses and to appeal the costs award.

The non-party Gore Mutual Insurance Company brought a motion under Rule 37.14(1) to vary a previous production order (the "Doi Order"), arguing that its failure to appear at the original motion was due to accident or mistake.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court dismissed Gore Mutual's motion, finding that it failed to establish that its non-appearance was due to accident or mistake, but rather due to carelessness and lack of diligence in processing court documents.

The court also found that Gore Mutual failed to bring its motion forthwith and that the general claim of prejudice lacked merit, especially given the implied undertaking rule.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment designation due to a mental or behavioural disorder following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a Class 4 (Marked) impairment in three of the four domains under the AMA Guides.

The evidence indicated that many of the applicant's functional limitations, including social withdrawal and learning difficulties, pre-dated the accident.

As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and the non-catastrophic medical and rehabilitation limits were exhausted, the claims for treatment plans, a section 10 award, and interest were dismissed.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her entitlement to attendant care benefits following a catastrophic motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the alleged errors were questions of mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law, and that the appellant failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The court also declined to exercise its discretion to hear the judicial review application, as the case did not present exceptional circumstances.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying medical and attendant care benefits on the basis that he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment from a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by deciding on causation without proper notice and erred in law by applying the 'but for' test instead of the 'material contribution' test.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding the applicant was aware of the causation issue, failed to raise procedural concerns during the hearing, and that applying the material contribution test would not have changed the outcome.

This is a costs ruling following a 16-day trial where the defendant, TD General Insurance Company, was the successful party, having proven fraud against the plaintiff, Shelly Legault.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of over $366,000.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, found the plaintiff's conduct (perpetrating fraud, suing for $1M, and prolonging litigation for seven years) warranted substantial indemnity costs.

While acknowledging some excessive time spent by defendant's counsel due to inadequate investigation, the court ultimately fixed the costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at $289,609.84, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, balancing reasonableness and proportionality.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he was not catastrophically impaired.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by failing to decide on his diagnosis, omitting mention of a psychiatric report, and failing to account for his reports of pain in assessing his psychological impairments.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding no errors of fact or law that would have altered the outcome.

Even when explicitly considering the applicant's pain disorder under the Pastore framework, the evidence demonstrated at most a moderate impairment in adaptation, falling short of the marked impairment required for a catastrophic designation.

The respondent's cross-request to reconsider a costs award for interfering with a witness was also dismissed.

The plaintiff sued her home insurer after it denied her claim for a fire loss.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the plaintiff committed fraud in her claim for Additional Living Expenses (ALE) by submitting a fake lease and using the rent money for other purposes.

The court found that the plaintiff and her purported landlord engaged in a deliberate scheme to obtain money from the insurer under the guise of rent.

Because the plaintiff made a willfully false statement in her proof of loss regarding the ALE, her entire claim was vitiated.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed, and the insurer's counterclaim for repayment of amounts already paid out was granted.

The Receiver of a deceased personal injury lawyer's professional corporation brought a motion seeking to impose a 'Sliding Fee Structure' on new counsel who took over the deceased lawyer's client files.

The Receiver argued this was necessary to efficiently realize on the estate's interest in the files.

The court dismissed the request to impose the fee structure, finding it would inappropriately override the clients' statutory rights under the Solicitors Act to receive and assess a bill.

However, the court ordered new counsel to provide the Receiver with 'Determinable Information' about the files to assist the Receiver in rendering accounts, subject to a privilege protocol.

The respondent insurer brought a motion under s. 55 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to bar the applicant's proceeding for attendant care benefits, alleging she failed to attend three insurer's examinations (IEs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant only failed to attend one properly scheduled IE, as the respondent had cancelled the other two.

Although the notice for the missed IE contained sufficient medical reasons, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under s. 55 to permit the application to proceed, noting the applicant had since been deemed catastrophically impaired and was willing to attend rescheduled IEs.

The Tribunal ordered a timetable for the applicant to attend an IE rather than barring or staying the application.

The applicant sought enhanced statutory accident benefits, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment from a motor vehicle accident.

He argued the accident caused or exacerbated conditions leading to a fall and seizure weeks later.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his present impairments, including a traumatic brain injury and psychological issues, were caused by the accident rather than his extensive pre-existing medical conditions, such as diabetic neuropathy and a history of syncope.

As the applicant did not meet the catastrophic impairment threshold and his standard policy limits were exhausted, all claims for medical, rehabilitation, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits were dismissed, along with claims for interest and a special award.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a whole person impairment of 55% or more.

The Tribunal reviewed extensive medical evidence and expert testimony regarding the applicant's physical and psychological impairments, including gait derangement, spine impairment, traumatic brain injury, and mental/behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's combined whole person impairment was 41%, falling short of the 55% threshold.

Consequently, claims for attendant care beyond the 104-week limit were dismissed.

The Tribunal partially approved treatment plans for a chronic pain program, chiropractic spinal manipulation, and psychotherapy, subject to remaining policy limits.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claim for additional attendant care benefits.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the main issue, ignored evidence, and demonstrated bias.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness, no error of law or fact, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The original decision was upheld.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her motion to add a request for punitive damages to her application for accident benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, finding that the Tribunal's ruling was not a final decision or order.

The Court emphasized that fragmentation and piecemeal appeals are discouraged in regulatory proceedings, and the appellant must wait until a final decision on the merits before appealing.