Celeste Courville

The plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment in a civil action for damages following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that the defendant should be bound by findings made in a prior provincial offences trial acquitting the driver of careless driving.

The court denied the motion, holding that the findings in the earlier trial were not determinative of the issues in the civil action, given the different burdens of proof and the fact that the defendant was not a party to the earlier proceeding.

The court found that relitigation of the driver’s role in the accident was not an abuse of process and that the defendant should be permitted to fully marshal evidence at trial.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits (ACBs), an orthopedic mattress and pillow, and medicinal cannabis.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet her onus for the mattress, pillow, or cannabis, noting a lack of medical evidence and the fact that the mattress was purchased the morning after the accident.

The Tribunal partially granted the ACBs, awarding $537.00 per month based on the applicant's functional limitations with reaching and bending.

However, the Tribunal declined to deem the ACBs incurred under s. 3(8) of the Schedule, finding the insurer's reliance on s. 44 assessments to deny the benefits was not unreasonable.

Claims for a special award were dismissed, but interest was awarded on the payable ACBs.

The defendants, Kristopher Purdy (an ambulance driver) and The Corporation of The City of Greater Sudbury, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims of negligence arising from a motorcycle accident.

The plaintiff alleged that Purdy's operation of the ambulance caused the accident by startling traffic, leading an unidentified driver to brake suddenly, which forced the plaintiff to lay down his motorcycle.

The court found the plaintiff's expert report problematic, as its conclusions were based on inadmissible hearsay and contradicted by objective evidence (Automatic Vehicle Location video data).

The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the action against them, concluding there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for psychological services under two treatment plans.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the treatments were either duplicative of previously approved plans or not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant had not fully consumed previously approved treatments and had ceased engaging in the proposed treatment.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

A law firm brought a motion seeking removal as counsel of record for the plaintiff shortly before trial, together with a sealing order for supporting affidavits and an adjournment of the scheduled trial.

The plaintiff opposed the withdrawal and insisted counsel be required to represent him at trial.

The court found the solicitor-client relationship had irretrievably broken down, citing the plaintiff’s loss of confidence in counsel, accusatory statements, and evidence of distrust.

With the defendants consenting to a trial adjournment, the court held it appropriate to permit counsel to withdraw.

The affidavits supporting the motion were ordered sealed and the trial was adjourned to permit the plaintiff to obtain new counsel or proceed self‑represented.