Damian Di Biase

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

The insurer denied funding for physiotherapy and medical expenses, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's spine impairments, including disc bulges and an annular tear, as well as chronic pain with functional impairment, placed him outside the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the disputed treatment plan, medical expenses, and interest on the overdue amounts.

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

The respondent denied two treatment plans for chiropractic and massage therapy services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal held that the respondent's denial notices for both treatment plans were defective and failed to comply with s. 38(8) of the Schedule because they were confusing and not clear and unequivocal.

Consequently, pursuant to s. 38(11), the treatment plans are payable once incurred and properly invoiced.

The court considered a motion by the Crown in Right of Ontario (on behalf of the OPP) to dismiss all claims against it for lack of notice under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, and a cross-motion by Certas Home and Auto Insurance to compel further discovery.

The court struck the plaintiff’s claim against the Crown for lack of notice but allowed Certas’ crossclaim to continue, holding that the statutory notice requirement does not apply to crossclaims.

The court also ordered Constable Khabra to re-attend for discovery to answer questions arising from undertakings, and addressed the requirements for Crown witness designation.

Costs were fixed in favour of Certas.

The plaintiff, Alma Cherry, brought a motion to dismiss third-party claims for delay.

The motion, previously adjourned at her request, was scheduled peremptorily for April 8, 2025.

On the hearing date, Cherry again sought an adjournment, citing complaints about opposing counsel and requests for further discovery materials.

The court authorized her to obtain an audio recording of the discovery, provided all counsel receive a copy before it is used in court.

The court explained that further requests regarding discovery refusals or document production must be brought by motion before the Associate Justices.

The court set deadlines for all parties regarding upcoming motions and adjourned Cherry’s motion to April 13, 2026, making clear that this would not affect the defendants’ right to proceed with their own motions.