Damien Van Vroenhoven

The appellant sought review of a single judge’s refusal to award costs after granting an extension of time to perfect an appeal.

Applying the deferential standard under s. 7(5) of the Courts of Justice Act, the panel held that intervention is available only for an error in principle, failure to identify the applicable principles, or an unreasonable result.

The panel rejected the request to remove comments about the apparent weakness of the underlying appeal, holding that merits were relevant to both the extension and costs determinations.

The review motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to two responding parties.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to notify the respondent within seven days or submit his application (OCF-1) within 30 days.

The applicant argued the delay was due to a good faith error by his counsel, who initially submitted the claim to a different insurer.

The Tribunal found the explanation was not credible, noting the applicant continued to submit claims to both insurers even after the alleged error was discovered.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delays and was therefore barred under section 55(1) of the Schedule from proceeding with his application.

The applicant sought a declaration that he was entitled to insurance coverage under his policy with Security National Insurance Company following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had been driving with an expired driver's license at the time of the accident, which occurred after he suffered a sudden medical episode.

Security National denied coverage on the basis that the applicant was not authorized by law to drive.

The applicant argued he had established the defence of due diligence to the offence of driving without a valid license, alternatively seeking relief from forfeiture.

The court granted the application, finding that the applicant had demonstrated due diligence and was entitled to insurance coverage.

The defendants and third party moved to enforce a settlement agreement reached on November 12, 2024, at an exit pre-trial conference.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, sought to repudiate the settlement, alleging that her lawyer, Eli Karp, lacked authority to settle and that the settlement was procured under duress with overbroad release language.

The court found that the parties entered into a binding settlement with all essential terms agreed upon, that Karp had both actual and ostensible authority to settle, and that the settlement was not procured under duress or through misrepresentation.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments regarding the adequacy of the settlement amount and the scope of the releases, finding them to be standard and reasonable.

The motion to enforce the settlement was granted.

The insurer applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for repayment of $23,064.00 in income replacement benefits (IRBs) paid to the respondent, alleging wilful misrepresentation of his employment status.

The Tribunal found that the respondent wilfully misrepresented his working status between February 1, 2021, and September 3, 2021, by failing to disclose his return to work.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to repay $5,908.00 for the period of February 1, 2021, to July 25, 2021, with interest.

The insurer's claim for repayment of the remaining amount was dismissed, as the subsequent repayment notices were found to be substantially incorrect.

Costs were denied.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario considered whether arbitrators may order a higher-priority automobile insurer to reimburse a lower-priority insurer for pre-arbitration expenses incurred in handling a Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) claim, outside the specific circumstances set out in Ontario Regulation 283/95.

The court held that, except in cases of improper deflection as provided in s. 2.1(7) of the regulation, arbitrators do not have authority to order such reimbursement.

The appeal was allowed, restoring the arbitrator’s decision that Unifund was not required to reimburse Echelon for its pre-arbitration expenses.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that barred her from proceeding with her claim due to non-compliance with her obligation to attend insurer's examinations.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in finding she had returned to Canada and requested an order regarding travel expenses.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact, and noting that the applicant's submissions regarding her return to Canada were not evidence and could have been raised at the initial hearing.

The request for an order on travel expenses was also dismissed as it was not an issue in the preliminary hearing.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments allegedly resulting from her daughter's motor vehicle accident.

The insurer requested insurer's examinations (IEs) under section 44 of the Schedule to determine entitlement.

The applicant, who had moved to Morocco, failed to attend the scheduled IEs and proposed alternative arrangements not permitted by the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant non-compliant with her obligation to attend the IEs and held that she is barred from proceeding with her application pursuant to section 55 of the Schedule.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit after her daughter was involved in a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with her claim because she failed to submit a disability certificate (OCF-3) within 104 weeks post-accident.

The Tribunal found that the language in section 36 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule is compulsory and bars an applicant from pursuing a claim if the OCF-3 is submitted after the 104-week eligibility period.

The applicant was therefore barred from proceeding with her claim.

The respondent's request for costs was denied.

The appellant, Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, appealed an arbitrator's decision concerning a reimbursement claim against the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

Wawanesa sought reimbursement for Statutory Accident Benefits paid to an individual involved in a snowmobile accident, whose vehicle was later found to be uninsured.

The arbitrator partially denied Wawanesa's claim and ordered Wawanesa to pay the Fund's legal and administrative costs, finding that Wawanesa had grossly mishandled its adjusting responsibilities and failed to hold benefits in trust as required by SABS provisions due to a pending criminal charge.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed Wawanesa's appeal, upholding the arbitrator's findings that there were no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors in the application of the law to the facts, including the arbitrator's discretion in awarding costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside an administrative dismissal order and extend the time to serve a statement of claim arising from a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff's former counsel issued a statement of claim in 2015 but failed to serve it on the defendant insurer.

Subsequent counsel commenced a second, duplicative action without realizing the first existed, leading to the first action being administratively dismissed for delay.

The court found the delay was caused by solicitor inadvertence and that the plaintiff always intended to proceed with the claim.

The court also found the defendant insurer would not suffer significant prejudice, as it had been actively litigating the same issues in the second action and had amassed relevant medical evidence.

The motion was granted, the dismissal was set aside, and the time for service was extended.

The applicant, a truck driver, suffered severe burn injuries to his legs while sleeping in the cab of his parked transport truck with the heater running, ultimately requiring bilateral knee amputations.

The respondent insurer denied statutory accident benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that sleeping in a truck cab and using its built-in heater are ordinary and well-known uses of the vehicle.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's theories of intervening causes, such as a stroke or a kettle, and concluded the heater was the dominant feature of the injuries.

The Tribunal held the incident was an accident and ordered the matter to proceed to a substantive hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to an orthopaedic assessment.

The applicant argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness and made errors of fact by failing to review an expert's qualifications via a URL link in a submitted report.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the applicant had an opportunity to address the expert's qualifications in reply submissions.

The Vice-Chair also found no error of fact, noting it is not the adjudicator's role to access documents not properly submitted or referenced in accordance with Tribunal orders.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied disputed treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by failing to properly consider evidence of chronic pain, psychological symptoms, and pre-accident activities.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue the evidence and that the original decision contained no significant legal or evidentiary mistakes warranting reconsideration.

The appellant Fund appealed an Arbitrator's decision finding that a taxi company's SPF 6 insurance policy was not a 'motor vehicle liability policy' under the Insurance Act, and therefore did not include Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs).

The court found that while the Arbitrator erred in law by concluding that a corporation is not a 'person' under the Act, the Arbitrator made no palpable and overriding error in determining that the taxis were not driven by employees, agents, or on behalf of the taxi company.

The court upheld the finding that an SPF 6 commercial general liability endorsement is not a motor vehicle liability policy intended to carry SABs.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits, as well as the cost of assessments, from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that his chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence demonstrating functional impairment or debilitating pain that would prevent his maximal medical recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's medical assessments over the applicant's, noting inconsistencies between the applicant's self-reporting and objective testing.

The application was dismissed, and no benefits were awarded.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were minor and fell within the MIG, relying on the uncontradicted reports of the respondent's insurer examination assessors.

As the applicant had exhausted the $3,500 MIG limit, the claims for medical benefits were dismissed.

Claims for interest and costs were also dismissed.

The insured requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that ordered her to repay $17,200 in overpaid income replacement benefits (IRBs) to Unifund.

The insured argued that the Tribunal erred by failing to adjudicate her claim that she was entitled to further IRBs, which should be set off against the overpayment.

The Associate Chair granted the reconsideration in part, finding that the Tribunal made a significant error of law by not considering the insured's arguments and evidence regarding IRB entitlement and set off, which were properly raised in the proceeding.

The matter was remitted back to the Tribunal to determine the issue of IRB entitlement and any resulting set off.

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

The insurer denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that while the injuries were predominantly minor, the applicant's pre-existing condition of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, which was documented prior to the accident via glandular swelling, prevented maximal recovery under the MIG.

The applicant was therefore excluded from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for two chiropractic treatment plans, an in-home assessment, and a functional abilities assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary, but denied a $108.00 chiropractic claim that exceeded the FSCO Professional Service Guideline.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing high blood pressure condition, psychological impairment, post-concussion syndrome, and chronic pain.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery or that he suffered from a non-minor psychological or physical impairment caused by the accident.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG, limiting his entitlement to medical and rehabilitation benefits to $3,500, and dismissed his claims for attendant care benefits, various assessments, and an award for unreasonably delayed payments.