Christine Ellis

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after allegedly being struck by an e-bike.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the e-bike was an 'automobile' in ordinary parlance or under any relevant statute, such as the Highway Traffic Act.

Consequently, the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' and the application for benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for several treatment plans and a special award under Reg. 664, alleging the respondent unreasonably delayed determining her catastrophic impairment status and failed to accommodate her disabilities under the Human Rights Code during the insurer's examination (IE) process.

The Tribunal found that the respondent did not unreasonably delay the payment of benefits, noting that the delays in scheduling IEs were largely attributable to the applicant and her counsel's refusal to attend and objections to the assessment process.

The Tribunal also found no violation of the Human Rights Code, as the respondent attempted to accommodate the applicant by reducing the number of required IEs.

The claims were dismissed in their entirety.

The plaintiff's property experienced flooding and damage due to storm sewer installation by the defendant City in 2002.

The plaintiff commenced an action in 2021, alleging negligence.

The City brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred by both the ultimate 15-year limitation period and the two-year basic limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the claim was based on a singular act of negligence in 2002, not a continuous act, and that the plaintiff had sufficient knowledge to commence proceedings well before the two-year period expired.

Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding it statute-barred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he suffered from chronic pain and an adjustment disorder, relying on brief reports from his treating physicians.

The Tribunal preferred the detailed reports of the respondent's medical assessors, finding insufficient evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

As the applicant had exhausted the MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant returned to full-time work shortly after the accident and did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

This is an appeal from an order directing the payment of funds held in court (net proceeds from a home sale) to the respondent in partial satisfaction of a summary judgment against Paige Imola.

The appellant, Luigi Imola, had transferred his interest in the home to his wife, Paige Imola, years prior to avoid creditors.

He argued for a resulting trust over half the funds.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge's factual findings, including the appellant's intention to gift the property and his subsequent actions, rebutted any presumption of a resulting trust.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $1,914.86 for occupational therapy to treat concussion symptoms following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing the concussion was caused by a subsequent workplace injury.

The Tribunal found that the medical records did not support a concussion diagnosis following the accident, but rather following a blow to the head at work two months later.

The application was dismissed as the treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary for accident-related impairments.

The respondent's request for costs due to late filing was also denied.

The applicant in a statutory accident benefits dispute brought a motion to compel the respondent's claims adjuster and lead counsel to give oral evidence at an upcoming hearing for three other motions.

The applicant alleged improprieties and coaching during the adjuster's cross-examination.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the five days of cross-examination transcripts were sufficient for the applicant to present her case, and that fairness did not dictate turning the motion into a trial by requiring oral evidence from the adjuster or opposing counsel.