Curtis C. Zizzo

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents in 2013 and 2014, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a marked or extreme impairment in any of the four functional domains.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's experts, noting that the applicant's experts failed to adequately consider his extensive pre-existing medical and psychiatric conditions, including chronic pain, depression, and strokes.

The Tribunal also found that the disputed treatment plans for a functional ability evaluation and an attendant care assessment were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant's ongoing impairments were primarily attributable to the progression of his pre-accident conditions.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The Estate of John Hemlow sought a declaration that Co-operators General Insurance Company had a duty to defend an action against the Estate arising from a workplace accident involving an ammonia leak.

Co-operators denied coverage based on a "Total Pollution Exclusion" clause in Hemlow's Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy.

The application judge found a duty to defend, concluding the exclusion was ambiguous and applied only to environmental pollution.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal for Ontario upheld the duty to defend, finding that the claim against the Estate was for negligence and breach of contract, which falls within the CGL policy's coverage, and the pollution exclusion did not apply as the claim was not for environmental pollution or government-mandated cleanup costs.

The applicant estate sought a declaration that the respondent insurer had a duty to defend it in an underlying action arising from a fatal ammonia leak.

The insurer denied coverage, relying on a 'Total Pollution Exclusion' in the commercial general liability policy.

The court found the exclusion clause ambiguous, as it failed to define 'pollution' and could reasonably be interpreted by the insured as applying only to traditional environmental pollution, not an accidental indoor leak of ammonia during routine mechanical work.

The application was granted, and the insurer was ordered to defend the estate.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision denying an adjournment request, permitting the withdrawal of her application for accident benefits, and awarding no costs.

The appellant argued the arbitrator failed to accommodate her under the Human Rights Code, failed to act on the insurer's non-compliance with benefit information requirements, and erred in denying costs.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the arbitrator's handling of the accommodation request, noting the benefit information issue was obiter dicta, and upholding the costs determination.

The applicant sought expenses following an arbitration hearing where he had mixed success.

The insurer was successful on the catastrophic impairment, attendant care, medical benefit, and special award issues, while the applicant was successful on the income replacement benefit issue.

Considering the monetary benefit the applicant received and the insurer's considerable success, the arbitrator awarded the applicant 50% of his claimed expenses, totaling $15,462.58 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits from the Insurer, including a declaration of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits, and medical benefits.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant suffered a mental disorder but did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, as he did not have a marked impairment in any of the four domains of functioning.

However, the arbitrator concluded that the Applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment and a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited, entitling him to IRBs.

The claims for attendant care benefits, medical benefits, and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for non-earner benefits.

The respondent denied the claim and later argued the applicant was statute-barred from appealing due to the two-year limitation period, and that the applicant could not advance the claim because a supportive disability certificate was not submitted until September 2016.

The Tribunal found the appeal was filed within the limitation period, which began running five days after the denial letter was mailed.

The Tribunal also held the applicant could advance his claim for non-earner benefits based on an October 2014 election of benefits and an incomplete disability certificate, as the respondent had sufficient information to know the applicant was claiming the benefit.

Following summary judgment dismissing the action against one defendant, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs for both the summary judgment motion and the defence of the action, arguing the claim should never have been brought and that the plaintiffs’ conduct prolonged the litigation unnecessarily.

The court reviewed the governing principles under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and authorities addressing elevated costs and fairness in fixing costs awards.

While the court found that the plaintiff’s conduct increased the complexity and expense of the litigation, it did not rise to the level of reprehensible conduct required for substantial indemnity costs.

The court instead fixed a global costs award payable to the successful defendant.