Daniel J. Rosenkrantz

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied the claim, alleging the applicant misrepresented the occurrence of the collision.

At arbitration, the arbitrator found significant inconsistencies in the testimony of the applicant and his witnesses regarding the events leading up to the alleged collision.

Furthermore, the arbitrator preferred the evidence of the insurer's accident reconstruction expert, who examined the vehicles firsthand and concluded the physical damage was inconsistent with the reported collision.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' as defined in the Schedule and dismissed the application.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2008 and sought ongoing income replacement benefits, housekeeping benefits, and medical benefits for psychological treatment.

The insurer terminated benefits, relying on surveillance evidence and medical assessments indicating the applicant's condition had improved and he was exaggerating symptoms.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, noting he failed to disclose a subsequent 2010 accident to assessors and attributed impairments from the second accident to the first.

The application for arbitration was dismissed, as the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment or a substantial inability to perform housekeeping tasks.

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

A dispute arose regarding the calculation of his prior earning capacity (PEC).

The applicant argued that income from his family's business should be included, which would raise his PEC.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was not meaningfully employed by the family business at the time of the accident and that the funds he received were dividend income rather than employment income.

The applicant's PEC was quantified at $247.98 per week based solely on a pre-accident offer of employment from another business.

The plaintiffs appealed a Divisional Court order compelling the plaintiff to attend two defence medical examinations.

The defendant had previously brought a motion to adjourn the trial to conduct defence medicals, which was dismissed.

The defendant subsequently brought a second motion to compel attendance at rescheduled medicals prior to trial, which was also dismissed by the motion judge but allowed on appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding that the second motion was substantially the same as the first, and the defendant was precluded by issue estoppel from relitigating the matter.

The appellant appealed an order finding that the underlying action had not been settled.

The Court of Appeal first determined it had jurisdiction, as the order finally disposed of the fundamental issue of whether a settlement existed and the action continued.

On the merits, the Court upheld the motions judge's finding that there was no agreement to settle, noting that the original exchange of emails was ambiguous and subsequent conduct did not resolve the ambiguity.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.