Catherine L. Wilde

The applicant sought payment for a psychological services treatment plan and an award for unreasonable delay under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the psychological services were not reasonable and necessary, relying on an insurer's examination that concluded the applicant did not meet the diagnostic threshold for a psychological disorder.

However, the Tribunal granted a 20% award under section 10 of Regulation 664, finding the respondent unreasonably delayed approval of a previously submitted occupational therapy treatment plan for nearly two years without explanation.

The defendants in a slip and fall action moved for leave to issue a third party claim against a snow removal contractor.

The motion was brought after the expiry of the limitation period for third party claims.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants were the authors of their own misfortune for the delay.

The court held that the prejudice to the plaintiffs, including the potential for further delay, additional examinations, and the erosion of witness memories, significantly outweighed the interest in avoiding multiple proceedings.

The respondent insurer brought a motion to prohibit the applicant from proceeding with an application for statutory accident benefits regarding three treatment plans.

The respondent argued the applicant failed to attend scheduled insurer's examinations under section 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the requested examinations were reasonably necessary and that the applicant failed to attend them without reasonable explanation.

Consequently, the applicant was found to be in non-compliance with section 44, and pursuant to section 55, was barred from proceeding with the application for the disputed treatment plans.

The respondent's request for costs was denied as there was insufficient evidence of unreasonable or bad faith conduct.

Following a jury trial in a personal injury action, the court addressed a post‑trial issue concerning the deductibility of disability insurance benefits received by the plaintiff.

The court determined that the jury had already effectively accounted for the benefits in its award and noted that the insurance had been privately purchased by the self‑employed plaintiff rather than provided through employment.

As a result, the plaintiffs were deemed successful and entitled to costs.

Upon reviewing the plaintiffs’ Bill of Costs, the court found the claimed hours excessive and reduced the recoverable legal fees while allowing disbursements and HST.

Costs were awarded in a reduced amount.

The plaintiff was involved in two motor vehicle accidents 11 months apart.

He settled his claim against the first tortfeasor and provided a standard release.

The identity of the second tortfeasor was unknown, so the plaintiff sued his own insurer under the unidentified motorist coverage for damages arising exclusively from the second collision.

The insurer brought a third party claim against the first tortfeasor for contribution and indemnity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision to strike the third party claim, finding that the insurer would only be held liable for the degree of damages attributable to the second accident and therefore had no right to seek contribution or indemnity from the first tortfeasor.

The plaintiff was injured when a park bench she sat on collapsed during a New Year's Eve event.

Shortly before, a town councillor had witnessed a vandal break the bench, but did not report it.

Someone subsequently propped the broken bench back up, making it appear normal.

The trial judge found the municipality liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for failing to have on-site security and for the councillor's failure to report the damage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the municipality's appeal, holding that the trial judge failed to apply the correct standard of care.

The court found that someone propping up a broken bench to make it appear normal was not a sufficiently probable contingency that the municipality was required to foresee.