Darryl Singer

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including medical, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator found the applicant's credibility severely compromised due to material misrepresentations, inflated claims, and failure to provide accurate medical histories to his assessors.

The applicant admitted to submitting claims for periods when he had no symptoms and required no assistance.

The arbitrator gave little weight to the applicant's medical expert due to incomplete information and bias against the Pre-approved Framework (PAF).

Preferring the insurer's assessments, the arbitrator dismissed all of the applicant's claims for accident benefits.

The appellant appealed an order dispensing with the requirement for his signature on a listing agreement for the sale of the matrimonial home, and the refusal of an adjournment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge did not exercise his discretion unreasonably in refusing the adjournment.

The appellant suffered no prejudice because the sale proceeds were ordered to be held in trust pending agreement or further court order.

The court stayed the order for 14 days to allow the appellant to remove his personal belongings.

The applicant was injured when she slipped and fell on black ice in a parking lot after disembarking from a motorcoach.

She applied for statutory accident benefits, which the insurer denied on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under section 2(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had safely disembarked and walked a short distance before falling.

Applying the direct causation test from Chisholm, the arbitrator concluded that the slip and fall was an intervening act not directly caused by the use or operation of the motor vehicle.

The application for arbitration was dismissed.

In an arbitration for statutory accident benefits, the insurer brought a preliminary motion to exclude the applicant's documents and witnesses due to late service.

The arbitrator excluded the applicant's documents under Rule 39.3(c) of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code because they were served less than 30 days before the hearing and no extraordinary circumstances justified the delay.

However, the arbitrator declined to exclude the applicant's medical witnesses under Rules 41 and 42.

The arbitration was stayed pending any appeal of these evidentiary rulings.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding fraud and awarding damages.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding of fraud, noting the appellant falsely represented that a $123,000 deposit had been paid.

The court also found no palpable and overriding error in the valuation of the equipment.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to correct an error in the interest calculation, reducing the judgment amount to $18,533.43.

The appeal and cross-appeal were otherwise dismissed.

This appeal concerned competing claims by a landlord, an equipment vendor, and a financing company to restaurant equipment left in leased premises after the tenant abandoned them.

The court held that the priority dispute was governed by s. 31(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act, not by the priority provisions of the Personal Property Security Act.

Because the tenant never had title to the equipment, the landlord could not invoke the statutory exception for title derived from the tenant and could only distrain against whatever equity the tenant may have acquired under the lease arrangement.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.