Danielle J. Ralph

Following a successful application to enforce a personal guarantee, the applicant sought costs on a substantial and full indemnity basis, relying on the terms of the guarantee and a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The respondents argued the requested amount was excessive for a simple application.

The court agreed the applicant was entitled to elevated costs but discounted the requested amount by approximately 10% to reflect a fair and reasonable quantum, awarding $145,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought to enforce a personal guarantee signed by the respondent for debts owed by his cinema company.

The respondent argued the guarantee was unenforceable due to an alleged oral representation that it would not be enforced, and alternatively, that it was unconscionable.

The court held that the matter was appropriate for an application under Rule 14, as the bald allegation of an oral representation lacked credibility and did not require a trial.

The court also rejected the unconscionability defence, finding no unequal bargaining power or improvident bargain.

Judgment was granted in favour of the applicant for the outstanding debt of over $2 million.

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

The respondent insurer denied the benefits on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the chiropractic treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence and reliance on the treatment plans themselves.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's s. 44 assessment reports which concluded further facility-based treatment would not provide substantive benefit for the applicant's soft-tissue injuries.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for psychological treatment, finding the applicant failed to respond to the insurer's request for further information under s. 33 of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The respondent denied several benefits and requested that the applicant attend multiple insurer examinations (IEs), which she failed to attend.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue seeking to bar the applicant's application pursuant to section 55 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was barred from proceeding with her claims for an in-home attendant care assessment, a monthly attendant care benefit, and certain chiropractic services because the respondent's notices for those IEs complied with section 44(5) of the Schedule.

However, the Tribunal held that the applicant was not barred from proceeding with her claims for a non-earner benefit, a second in-home assessment, and other chiropractic services because the respondent's notices for those IEs were deficient and failed to provide sufficient medical reasons.