Brian A. Gualazzi

The plaintiff moved for leave to strike the jury notice, to amend her claim to bring it within the simplified procedure, and to have the action tried pursuant to the simplified procedure.

The defendant opposed the relief.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the grounds for the request pre-existed the filing of the trial record, meaning there was no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances to warrant granting leave.

Furthermore, the court held that striking the jury notice would deprive the defendant of a substantive statutory right without providing a significant benefit to the plaintiff, as trial delays would likely occur regardless of the trial format.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend her statement of claim to limit damages to $200,000 and to strike the jury notice, thereby transferring the action to the Simplified Procedure track under Rule 76.

The defendants opposed, citing delay and potential prejudice.

The court granted leave, finding a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances due to the increased monetary threshold for Simplified Procedure and the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on jury trials.

The court further found that striking the jury notice and proceeding under Simplified Procedure was in the best interests of justice, promoting proportionality, accessibility, and expeditious resolution, without causing functional disadvantage to the defendants.

Following a three-and-a-half-week jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff was awarded $36,000 in damages.

As this amount was less than the vanishing deductible, the action was dismissed.

The defendant sought costs of $211,234.92, having beaten a pre-trial offer to settle.

The court reduced the costs award to $150,000, noting that the defendant's late production of documents and lengthy cross-examination unnecessarily extended the trial by one-and-a-half weeks.

The plaintiff was granted 12 months to pay the costs award.

The insurer sought its expenses following the successful defence of an appeal regarding the appellant's entitlement to non-earner benefits.

The appellant did not respond to the insurer's bill of expenses.

The Director's Delegate found that the insurer was entirely successful on the appeal and was therefore entitled to its expenses under the Expense Regulation.

The claimed amount of $1,977.17 was found to be reasonable and was awarded in full.

The appellant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident at age 10, appealed an Arbitrator's decision denying him non-earner benefits (NEBs) under the SABS-1996.

The Arbitrator found that the appellant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life within 104 weeks of the accident, nor when he turned 16.

The appellant argued that the insurer's failure to provide proper notices of refusal procedurally entitled him to benefits.

The Director's Delegate upheld the Arbitrator's decision, confirming that under the Court of Appeal's decision in Stranges, procedural breaches by an insurer do not automatically entitle an insured to benefits without proving substantive entitlement.

The appeal was dismissed.

Following a decision denying the applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits, the parties sought a determination on their entitlement to arbitration expenses.

The arbitrator applied Rule 75.2 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, noting that the insurer was entirely successful in the arbitration and had made a more reasonable settlement offer.

The issues raised were not particularly novel.

Consequently, the arbitrator found the insurer entitled to its expenses and ordered the applicant to pay the agreed quantum of $11,974.72.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident when he was nine years old.

He applied for non-earner benefits upon turning 16, arguing that his accident-related impairments continuously prevented him from engaging in substantially all of his pre-accident activities, leading him to drop out of school.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's academic and social difficulties were not primarily caused by the accident, but rather by pre-existing learning issues, a more demanding high school curriculum, and non-accident-related back pain.

The application for non-earner benefits, along with claims for a special award and interest, was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, residents of Ontario, were injured in a motor vehicle accident in Michigan when their vehicle was rear-ended by the defendant, a Michigan resident.

The plaintiffs commenced an action in Ontario and the defendant moved to stay the action, arguing that Ontario lacked jurisdiction simpliciter and was forum non conveniens.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a real and substantial connection to Ontario because the plaintiffs resided and received most of their medical treatment there, and the defendant, living in a border city, could reasonably foresee involvement in an accident with an Ontario resident.

The court also held that Ontario was the more convenient forum given the location of the plaintiffs' medical witnesses and the need to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings regarding their underinsured motorist coverage.