6 total
Death and funeral benefits denied as applicant failed to prove accident caused fatal overdose.
The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2019 and subsequently died of a drug and alcohol overdose in 2022.
Her estate claimed Death and Funeral Benefits, arguing the accident caused a psychological downward spiral leading to her death.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and reviewed the applicant's medical and counselling records.
The Tribunal found that while the applicant suffered an initial psychological impairment from the accident, her condition had improved significantly by mid-2021, and her subsequent relapse into substance abuse was unrelated to the accident.
The application for benefits and a special award was dismissed.
Application for non-earner and medical benefits dismissed due to lack of objective evidence and embellishment.
The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a medical benefit for an occupational therapy assessment following a motor vehicle accident.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistent effort and embellishment during insurer's examinations.
The Tribunal preferred the insurer's expert reports over the applicant's psychological assessment, which failed to compare pre- and post-accident functioning.
The application was dismissed, and the applicant was not entitled to the claimed benefits or interest.
Partial summary judgment granted for tax interest and penalties caused by delayed HST payment.
The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking recovery of interest, penalties, legal fees, and financing costs arising from the defendant purchaser’s failure to promptly remit HST payable under an agreement of purchase and sale for land.
After the Canada Revenue Agency reassessed the transaction and imposed HST liability on the plaintiff, the plaintiff paid the tax along with associated interest and penalties.
The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the interest and penalties because they directly resulted from the defendant’s failure to timely fulfill its contractual obligation to remit HST.
However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the remaining claimed damages, including legal and financing costs, as these may have been avoidable if the plaintiff had provided an invoice requested by the defendant and the CRA.
Partial summary judgment was granted for the interest and penalties only.
Insured ordered to attend neuropsychological assessment for catastrophic impairment determination; arbitration stayed pending attendance.
The insurer brought a motion to compel the insured to attend a section 44 neuropsychological assessment to determine catastrophic impairment, and to stay the arbitration until she attended.
The insured had refused to attend, arguing she had not alleged a head injury or cognitive problems other than psychiatric issues.
The arbitrator found the assessment was reasonably necessary and fair, as the insured had raised catastrophic impairment as a new issue and her own psychiatrist's report noted cognitive complaints.
The motion was granted and the arbitration was stayed pending the assessment.
Summary judgment denied; prior criminal conviction for driving without consent does not conclusively establish lack of consent.
The defendant dealership moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' personal injury claim and the co-defendant insurer's cross-claim, arguing that the driver's prior criminal conviction for taking the vehicle without consent conclusively established a lack of consent.
The co-defendant insurer opposed the motion.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the criminal conviction did not have preclusive effect because the driver faced little jeopardy and there was no robust examination of the facts.
The court also held that the insurer had standing to oppose the motion and maintain its cross-claim despite not yet having indemnified the plaintiffs, in order to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings.
Court orders tort and accident benefits actions from same accident to be tried together.
The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 6.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order that an accident benefits action be tried together with a related tort action arising from the same motor vehicle accident.
The court considered whether the proceedings shared common questions of law or fact and whether trying them together would promote efficiency and avoid inconsistent findings.
Applying factors relating to expediency, convenience, potential prejudice, and overlap of witnesses and expert evidence, the court found that the actions arose from the same accident and involved overlapping issues regarding injuries and damages.
The court concluded that hearing the matters together would reduce duplication of witnesses and trial time without causing meaningful prejudice.
The motion was granted and the actions were ordered to be tried together.
