4 total
Human rights application dismissed; insurer's request for medical confirmation of gender re-assignment surgery was not discriminatory.
The applicant alleged discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression after her long-term disability claim following gender re-assignment surgery was delayed.
The respondent insurer had requested additional medical information to confirm the surgery was medically necessary under the policy exclusions.
The Tribunal held a summary hearing and dismissed the application, finding no reasonable prospect of success, as the insurer's request for medical confirmation of the surgery's necessity did not constitute discrimination.
Human rights application alleging discrimination in disability benefits process dismissed for no reasonable prospect of success.
The applicant alleged discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming she was improperly asked questions about her disability by the respondent insurer when applying for short-term disability benefits.
The respondents requested a summary hearing to dismiss the application.
The Tribunal found that the applicant received her full entitlement to benefits and failed to provide facts that could link the requests for information to a Code violation.
The application was dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success.
Appeal from dismissal of action for delay at a status hearing dismissed.
The appellant appealed the decision of a status hearing judge who dismissed her 2004 action for delay under Rule 48.14(13) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The status hearing was held five years after the statement of defence was filed.
The Court of Appeal found that the status hearing judge was entitled to accept the history of the action as described in the defence affidavit and that his order dismissing the action was justified.
The appeal on the merits and leave to appeal costs were dismissed.
Appeal and cross-appeal from a jury verdict on disability benefits dismissed; no prejudice from counsel's comments.
The insurer appealed a jury verdict awarding disability benefits to the plaintiff, arguing that the plaintiff's counsel made improper comments during the closing address and that the verdict was perverse.
The plaintiff cross-appealed the trial judge's decisions on punitive damages, prejudgment interest, the form of judgment, and costs.
The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were adequate, the jury's verdict was supported by evidence, and there was no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion regarding the cross-appeal issues.
