Charles Gluckstein

The applicant insurer sought a stay of an interlocutory scheduling order made by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying an adjournment of a complex catastrophic impairment hearing.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances justifying intervention, noting the LAT's decision was unreasonable and failed to balance institutional concerns with the legitimate interests of the parties and their counsel's availability.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted the stay, vacated the scheduled hearing dates, and directed the LAT to reschedule the hearing to mutually available dates.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits and funding for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the attendant care expenses were incurred pursuant to s. 3(7)(e) of the Schedule, and medical evidence indicated she had returned to her personal care and housekeeping tasks.

The Tribunal also denied the treatment plan for chiropractic services, finding the cost excessive and the treatment not reasonable and necessary given the applicant's pre-existing conditions and lack of functional improvement from past treatments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments allegedly sustained as a result of her mother's involvement in a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed entitlement to four treatment plans (OCF-18s) for vocational, academic, social rehabilitation, and psychological services.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to address any accident-related impairments.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's post-accident complaints were not significantly different from her pre-accident mental health and well-being.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments allegedly resulting from her mother's motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed entitlement to social rehabilitation counselling and vocational/academic counselling.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological symptoms were primarily related to pre-existing factors, including her parents' separation and the loss of her grandfather, rather than the accident.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to address accident-related impairments.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments allegedly sustained after her mother was injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed entitlement to three treatment plans for social rehabilitation and vocational/academic counselling.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting that her pre-existing psychological issues and family circumstances were the primary cause of her impairments, and that her accident-related symptoms had resolved.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for occupational therapy, chiropractic services, and Botox injections.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as her goals for occupational therapy were largely met, there was insufficient evidence supporting the need for further chiropractic services, and the Botox injections were recommended by a social worker without the necessary qualifications and contrary to a neurologist's recommendations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment plans, which the respondent insurer denied.

The adjudicator found that the medical evidence, including clinical notes and psychological assessments, demonstrated the applicant continued to experience accident-related pain and physical impairments.

The respondent's reliance on a three-year-old physiatry assessment and speculation about life events causing the pain were rejected.

The Tribunal concluded the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to provide pain relief and improve functionality, granting the application in its entirety with interest.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired in a 2013 motor vehicle accident, sought payment for an in-home occupational therapy assessment to determine ongoing attendant care and housekeeping needs.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing it was statute-barred under s. 56 of the Schedule because a previous denial was not disputed within two years, and that the assessment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that a 2016 partial settlement agreement did not permanently end the applicant's entitlement to these benefits and no settlement disclosure notice was provided.

The Tribunal concluded the claim was not statute-barred and that the assessment was reasonable and necessary given evidence of changes in the applicant's circumstances.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit, medical cannabis, and osteopathy treatments (including a treadmill and vaporizer).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the non-earner benefit, finding the applicant was still able to perform many self-care and daily living activities.

However, the Tribunal granted the medical benefits for medical cannabis and osteopathy, finding them reasonable and necessary given the applicant's ongoing pain and the recommendations of his treating practitioners.

Interest on overdue payments was also awarded.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits for a period beginning August 1, 2016.

The respondent argued the claim was barred by res judicata due to a prior FSCO arbitration decision that found no benefits were payable beyond December 31, 2013.

The Tribunal held that res judicata did not apply because the current claim was for a new period, based on new Form 1 assessments not considered by the FSCO arbitrator, and the Schedule permits ongoing applications for attendant care benefits when circumstances change.

The application was permitted to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The respondent insurer brought a motion seeking the production of 36 documents, including medical and employment records, relying on a case conference order that required the applicant to produce 'all relevant documents as necessary'.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the phrase in the order referred only to specific hospital and ambulance reports previously discussed.

The adjudicator noted that the respondent failed to explain the relevance of the requested documents and that it was not open to the respondent to seek medical records to justify previously denied benefits.

The applicant sought expenses following an arbitration decision where he was awarded a portion of the attendant care benefits claimed.

The insurer argued that each party should bear their own expenses since the applicant only achieved partial success.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was required to proceed to arbitration to obtain the benefits awarded and that denying expenses would be unfair, as the award could be consumed by the costs incurred.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant expenses of $11,401.28, calculated at Legal Aid rates.

This supplementary endorsement addresses the costs of an unsuccessful motion for leave to appeal brought by the plaintiff.

The defendants, having been entirely successful, were presumptively entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the amounts claimed by the defendants' counsel to be excessive for a straightforward leave to appeal motion heard in writing, particularly the time allocated for legal research and drafting.

The court significantly reduced the claimed costs, setting a cap for fees on such motions, and awarded specific amounts to each defendant group.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought enhanced statutory accident benefits, claiming she suffered a catastrophic impairment due to a brain injury resulting in a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 9 or less.

The respondent argued the low GCS scores were caused by intubation and sedation rather than brain impairment.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's brain impairment and lowered GCS scores were directly caused by the brain injury and hypovolaemia resulting from the accident.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment and is entitled to enhanced benefits.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order compelling the production of historical medical records dating back to 2000 in a personal injury action.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal primarily because it was served out of time and the plaintiff did not seek an extension.

The court also noted that the motion would fail on the merits, as the requested records were relevant to the plaintiff's pre-existing complaints and proportional to the $2 million damages claim.

The Applicant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought attendant care benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Insurer denied the benefits, arguing they were not "incurred" because the Applicant's caregivers did not sustain an economic loss.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant's friend, who housed and cared for him while acting as his surety on bail, sustained an economic loss by charging reduced rent and incurring additional grocery and utility costs.

The arbitrator awarded attendant care benefits of $3,526.34 per month for the period the Applicant resided with this friend.

Claims for other periods, including while the Applicant was hospitalized, staying with other family members, or incarcerated, were dismissed due to a lack of evidence of attendant care services provided or economic loss sustained.

The moving parties sought partial summary judgment declaring that a Vespa involved in a motor vehicle accident was insured under the "newly acquired automobile" provision of the Standard Automobile Policy (OAP 1).

The court examined whether the insured satisfied the preconditions of s. 2.2.1, including whether the insurer insured all automobiles owned by the insured and whether any additional premium was paid.

The evidence showed the insured owned other automobiles, including a vehicle insured abroad and two motorcycles, that were not insured by the insurer.

The court held these vehicles fell within the statutory definition of "automobile", meaning the insured did not meet the requirement that all owned automobiles be insured by the same insurer.

As a result, the Vespa was not insured under the OAP provision and the statutory bar in s. 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act prevented the insured from pursuing damages against the other driver.

The applicant's counsel brought a motion to be removed as solicitors of record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, citing substantial difficulties in communication and an inability to locate the applicant.

The respondent did not oppose the motion.

The arbitrator granted the motion, permitting Gluckstein & Associates LLP to withdraw as solicitors of record.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that a pocket bike operated by the respondent on private property was an automobile, entitling her to statutory accident benefits.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, holding that under the Off-Road Vehicles Act, an off-road vehicle driven on land occupied by its owner is not required to be insured.

Applying the 'time and circumstances' analysis from Copley v. Kerr Farms Ltd., the pocket bike did not require insurance at the time of the incident and was therefore not an automobile within the meaning of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant was injured while riding a gas-powered 'pocket bike' on private property and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the pocket bike was not an 'automobile' and therefore no 'accident' occurred.

The arbitrator found that the pocket bike met the definition of an off-road vehicle under the Off-Road Vehicles Act.

Because the owner had previously driven it on lands they did not occupy, it was required to be insured under that Act.

Consequently, it fell within the expanded definition of 'automobile' under section 224(1)(a) of the Insurance Act, meaning the applicant was involved in an accident and entitled to claim benefits.