7 total
Accident benefits claim barred due to unexcused two-year delay in submitting application.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and notified the insurer shortly after.
The insurer provided an application for accident benefits (OCF-1), but the applicant did not submit the completed form until nearly two years later.
The insurer argued the claim was statute-barred due to the delay.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, noting the lack of medical documentation to support his claim of cognitive impairment and the insurer's fulfillment of its duty to inquire and assist.
The application was dismissed as statute-barred.
Application for accident benefits dismissed as injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline limit.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries, including a concussion and headaches, fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
As a preliminary issue, the adjudicator excluded the respondent's surveillance evidence due to late service, finding it prejudiced the applicant's ability to respond.
On the substantive issues, the adjudicator found insufficient medical evidence to support the concussion or persistent headache claims, concluding the injuries were predominantly minor.
Because the disputed treatment plans exceeded the $3,500 MIG limit, they were denied, and the application was dismissed.
Unopposed motions to consolidate two slip and fall actions and amend pleadings granted.
The plaintiff brought three unopposed motions in writing regarding two proceedings arising from the same alleged slip and fall accident.
The first two motions sought to consolidate the two actions, as the plaintiff had initially sued an unknown property management company and later commenced a second action upon learning its identity.
The third motion sought leave to amend the statement of claim in the consolidated proceeding to reflect the correct parties.
The court granted the consolidation, finding the proceedings had common questions of fact and law, and granted leave to amend the pleadings to correct the misnomer and remove discontinued parties.
Fall in parking lot caused by strapping on ground did not constitute an 'accident' under the Schedule.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after falling in a nursery parking lot.
She claimed she was in the process of unlocking her vehicle when her leg became caught in strapping on the ground.
The insurer denied the claim, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Schedule.
The Arbitrator found that the incident did not arise out of the use or operation of an automobile, as the evidence indicated she fell while turning away from returning a shopping cart, not while unlocking her vehicle.
Furthermore, the vehicle was not the direct cause of her injuries; the strapping on the ground was the intervening and dominant feature.
The application for arbitration was dismissed.
Tripping over a parked motorcycle qualifies as an accident for statutory accident benefits.
The respondent was injured when he tripped over a motorcycle parked on a walkway between trailers at a campsite.
The appellant insurer denied statutory accident benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The application judge found that the temporary parking of the motorcycle constituted an ordinary or well-known use of the vehicle, satisfying the purpose test.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that parking a vehicle is an ordinary and well-known activity to which vehicles are put, and dismissed the appeal.
Collision with negligently parked motorcycle qualifies as accident under SABs.
An insurer brought an application seeking a declaration that the respondent’s injuries did not arise from an “accident” within the meaning of s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The respondent had tripped over a motorcycle that had been temporarily parked in a pedestrian walkway at a campsite and sustained serious spinal injuries.
Applying the two‑part purpose and causation test from Amos and subsequent Ontario Court of Appeal jurisprudence, the court held that the temporary parking of the motorcycle constituted the use or operation of an automobile.
The motorcycle’s placement in the walkway was found to be the dominant feature causing the injuries and created an unbroken chain of causation.
The court declared that the incident was an “accident” under the SABs.
Venue transfer denied where moving defendants failed to show proposed forum significantly better.
The moving defendants sought an order transferring a personal injury action from Toronto to Kitchener under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The claim arose from a serious accident in which a child fell from a third‑storey apartment window in Waterloo, sustaining significant head injuries.
The court reviewed the holistic factors governing venue transfer, including the connection of the events to the community, convenience of parties and witnesses, availability of court facilities, and the plaintiff’s choice of forum.
Although the accident occurred in Waterloo Region, the court found the moving defendants failed to establish that Kitchener was significantly more desirable than Toronto, particularly given logistical support arrangements for the disabled child plaintiff and the location of counsel and expert witnesses.
The motion to transfer the venue was dismissed.
