Bob Jones

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

The insurer denied further medical benefits and a non-earner benefit, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological impairments took him outside the MIG, entitling him to most of the disputed treatment plans.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for the non-earner benefit, finding surveillance and medical evidence showed the applicant was not continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of his pre-accident activities.

Claims for costs and a special award were also dismissed.

The plaintiffs were involved in a motor vehicle accident and commenced an action against their own insurer and 'John Doe' as the unidentified driver.

Almost two and a half years later, the plaintiffs brought a motion to substitute the proposed defendants for 'John Doe' on the basis of misnomer.

The proposed defendants argued they would suffer prejudice due to the plaintiffs' delay and lack of due diligence.

Applying the Court of Appeal's jurisprudence on misnomer, the Master granted the motion, finding that the proposed defendants' insurer was aware of the accident from the outset.

However, due to the plaintiffs' significant delay, they were denied interest on any ultimate recovery from the date of the accident until June 30, 2018.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) preliminary decision finding that the respondent was a resident of Ontario at the time of his motor vehicle accident in Alberta, and thus an 'insured person' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent had been living and working in Alberta for more than 60 days prior to the accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT reasonably applied a flexible, context-specific test for 'ordinary residence' rather than a strict physical presence test, and that the LAT's weighing of the evidence regarding the respondent's ties to Ontario was reasonable.