Christopher K. Lamm

The plaintiff, Adam Provis, brought a motion to validate service of his statement of claim and extend the time for service nunc pro tunc to October 27, 2023, and to strike the defendants' limitation period defence.

The case arose from a failed real estate transaction where the defendants, Ramadhani Makele and Tantine Mkombozi, were the intended purchasers who failed to close.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing prejudice due to the delay in service and that their limitation defence should be determined at trial.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that the plaintiff made reasonable efforts to serve, the delay was short, and the defendants failed to demonstrate prejudice caused by the delay.

The court also struck the limitation defence, confirming that the claim was commenced within the two-year limitation period by issuance of the statement of claim.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming $2,486.00 for a physiatry assessment and an award for unreasonably withheld payments.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the assessment was reasonable and necessary, preferring the insurer's medical examination report which found normal neurological findings and functional range of motion.

The applicant's expert evidence on chronic pain was rejected due to reliance on subjective reporting without objective validity testing.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was also dismissed, as the insurer reasonably relied on its assessors' reports in denying the benefit.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and funding for two psychological treatment plans following two motor vehicle accidents.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of his pre-accident activities to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal also denied the outstanding balance of the first psychological treatment plan.

However, the Tribunal partially approved the second psychological treatment plan for $1,696.13, preferring the recommendation of the respondent's own assessor who suggested an additional block of sessions to consolidate treatment gains.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish a chronic pain condition or psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's expert medical reports.

As the injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to a physiotherapy treatment plan and a functional impairment assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The medical evidence did not support a diagnosis of chronic pain under the AMA Guides criteria, and there was insufficient contemporaneous medical evidence to justify the requested treatments.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied claims for a psychological assessment and physiotherapy services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and failed to prove that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological impairments removed her from the MIG.

As the applicant had already been approved for the $3,500 funding limit, she was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, interest, or an award.

The plaintiff moved for an order requiring the defendant to produce a second corporate representative for examination for discovery.

The plaintiff had already commenced the examination of the defendant's current General Manager, who was not employed by the defendant at the time of the incident but had informed himself by speaking with the proposed second representative.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the first representative was unable to answer questions or that the plaintiff would be deprived of a meaningful discovery without examining the second representative.