Christopher D.J. Hacio

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed her claim for an in-home/attendant care assessment and a chiropractic treatment plan.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made significant errors of law by ignoring a prior FSCO decision and errors of fact by ignoring evidence regarding her pain reduction, geographic location, and medical practitioners.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the FSCO decision was not binding and that the Tribunal had properly considered and weighed the evidence in determining the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment in a wrongful dismissal action.

The defendant argued that its failure to defend the action was solely due to the negligence of its former lawyer, who failed to act despite instructions.

The court applied the test for setting aside a default judgment and found that the defendant moved promptly upon learning of the default, had a plausible explanation for the default, and raised an arguable defence on the merits regarding cause for termination and damages.

The court granted the motion to set aside the default judgment but ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff's substantial indemnity costs incurred due to the default.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) from the respondent insurer.

The insurer terminated the IRBs, and the applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal seeking IRBs for a disputed period of approximately three weeks before she returned to work.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence demonstrating a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a hairdresser.

Relying on the respondent's multidisciplinary independent medical examination, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for IRBs, interest, and costs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended that chronic pain syndrome, psychological impairments, jaw injury, and post-traumatic headaches removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including an orthopaedic report diagnosing chronic pain syndrome, lacked objective medical findings and corroboration.

Conversely, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's independent medical examinations, which concluded the injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue sprains and strains.

The Tribunal held the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and dismissed the claims for treatment plans, cost of examinations, and an award for delayed payments.

The applicant's request for costs was also denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for an in-home assessment and chiropractic services.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The medical evidence, including reports from the applicant's own orthopedic surgeons, indicated that the applicant had plateaued and that conservative therapy would not be beneficial.

The application was dismissed.

In a voir dire during a personal injury jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court ruled on the admissibility of expert evidence from three of the plaintiff's proposed medical experts.

The court permitted a chiropractor and an orthopedic surgeon to testify within their specific scopes of practice regarding musculoskeletal issues and trigger points, but precluded them from diagnosing the plaintiff's swallowing disorder (achalasia) or providing threshold opinions on that impairment.

A second chiropractor was entirely excluded from testifying due to clear bias, partisan methodology, and opining outside his area of expertise.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for particulars of the plaintiffs' statement of claim regarding a house fire contents claim, prior to delivering its statement of defence.

The court reviewed the principles governing particulars and held that where oral discovery is available, particulars are generally limited to what a party requires to respond to a pleading.

The court found that most of the plaintiffs' allegations were pleaded with sufficient particularity to allow the defendant to plead.

However, the court struck a boilerplate claim for 'further and other damages' and ordered the plaintiffs to provide particulars of their claim for 'special damages' within 30 days.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for chiropractic and massage therapy treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the plans based on insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found the applicant credible and held that the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary as they provided temporary pain relief that allowed the applicant to maintain workplace attendance and perform daily activities.

The Tribunal placed less weight on the insurer's examinations, finding them unhelpful or taken out of context.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the treatment plans and interest on overdue payments.

Appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their claim against Lloyd's of London on the basis that the action was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The action arose from a 2000 Greyhound bus accident where a passenger grabbed the steering wheel, causing the bus to roll.

The appellants obtained a judgment against the passenger at trial in 2012 but did not pursue recovery from Lloyd's of London until 2016, claiming Lloyd's was the insurer for the passenger.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the limitation period commenced from the trial judgment date and had expired before the action was commenced.

The plaintiff was driving past a baseball stadium when a baseball hit out of the park during batting practice shattered her window and struck her head.

She sued the city, the home team, and the visiting team (the Duluth Huskies).

The visiting team moved for summary judgment, arguing a visiting team cannot be liable for balls hit out of a stadium.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, noting that pleadings were not yet closed for the other defendants and that factual issues remained regarding where the players were batting from and their knowledge of gaps in the protective netting.

The defendant sought leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act to bring a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, a US-based corporation.

The court applied the test for security for costs and the narrower 'instability and insolvency' test for construction lien actions.

The court found that while the plaintiff lacked liquid assets in Ontario, leave should not be granted because the defendant knew of the plaintiff's non-resident status when entering the contract, and ordering security for costs was neither necessary to level the playing field nor likely to expedite the resolution of the dispute.

The motion for leave was denied.

The plaintiff, J.I.L.M. Enterprises & Investments Limited, sought costs following a successful trial where it was awarded damages for breach of an insurance contract and punitive damages against INTACT Insurance.

The plaintiff requested substantial indemnity costs of approximately $350,000 for fees and $124,000 for disbursements.

The defendant, INTACT, argued for partial indemnity costs, a reduction for secretarial time, improper claims, and a 25% discount for divided success.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing fees at $210,000 plus HST, and disbursements and taxes on disbursements at $115,000, after considering the complexity, importance of issues, and a modest reduction for divided success on certain claims.

The defendant was successful on a motion for summary judgment and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $73,904.88, or alternatively $58,976.58 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiffs argued the amount was excessive and suggested $20,000.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs as there was no offer to settle or reprehensible conduct.

Finding overlap and excessive hours in the defendant's bill of costs, the court awarded the defendant $25,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements on a partial indemnity scale.

The applicant sought costs after the respondent conceded catastrophic impairment less than two weeks before the scheduled hearing.

The applicant argued the respondent acted unreasonably, frivolously, and in bad faith by delaying the concession and failing to produce two medical reports.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the respondent acted reasonably in relying on its medical evidence and noting the applicant's low medical/rehabilitation expenses.

The Tribunal also found no breach of disclosure orders, as the applicant could have obtained the reports directly from his own service providers.

The court issued an addendum to clarify a previous judgment following a teleconference with counsel.

The reasons were modified to specify that the replacement cost owing by the insurer is payable upon satisfactory proof that the actual cash value (ACV) funds have been expended for rebuilding or replacement.

The Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the Defendants' counterclaim and set-off defence, was dismissed.

This decision addresses the Defendants' claim for costs.

The court, applying Rule 57.01, found the Defendants' claimed costs of over $67,000 to be excessive, noting the motion's complexity was not as high as claimed and much of the work could be used at trial.

The court awarded the Defendants partial indemnity costs of $35,000.00 plus HST and disbursements of $600.00 plus HST, representing a 35% reduction from full indemnity.

The defendant, Intact Insurance, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to comply with undertakings and answer refusals from her examination for discovery in a personal injury action.

By the time of the hearing, the undertakings had been answered, leaving only the refusals and costs in dispute.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer questions regarding prior injuries and to produce academic records from an incomplete bookkeeping course relevant to her loss of income claim.

The request for un-redacted counsellor records was deemed premature.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim and set-off claims, arguing that the two-year limitation period had expired, the issues were res judicata, and the claims constituted an abuse of process.

The dispute arose from a long-standing business relationship involving bank loan guarantees and a life insurance policy.

The court applied the Hryniak framework and found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including evidentiary gaps regarding the limitation period, potential waiver or estoppel, and the applicability of equitable set-off.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The plaintiff's motel/restaurant complex was partially destroyed by fire, leading to an insurance claim with INTACT.

The insurer delayed payment for nearly three years, driven by an unsubstantiated arson investigation and adversarial conduct, including misleading Crime Stoppers ads.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract, replacement cost, lost profits, and punitive damages for bad faith.

The court found INTACT breached its duty of good faith by prolonging the investigation without reasonable grounds and delaying payment.

The plaintiff was awarded an increased replacement cost (conditional on rebuilding), lost profits for the period of delay, and significant punitive damages for the insurer's high-handed conduct.

This decision addresses a motion for the appointment of a case management judge to oversee two complex and intertwined files (an application and an action) involving numerous parties and pending motions.

The court found that the litigation had become unmanageable and would benefit from a single judge providing directions and making procedural orders to expedite the proceedings.

Justice Pierce, already familiar with the matters, was appointed as the case management judge under Rules 37.15 and 50.13 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, with all future motions to be heard by her.