David Hollingsworth

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing for approval of a settlement on behalf of an adult under disability, along with related relief.

The court adjourned the motion because the plaintiff's motion record exceeded 1,100 pages, failed to comply with the local Guide to Court Approval of Settlements, and contained uncommissioned exhibits.

The plaintiff was ordered to file a revised, compliant motion record of no more than 250 pages, schedule an oral hearing with a compendium, or schedule a case conference.

The moving parties sought approval in writing of a settlement for an adult under disability, together with approval of a fee structure agreement and solicitor-client account.

The court held it could not grant the requested relief because the motion record was procedurally deficient, excessively long, improperly organized, and non-compliant with local guidance for court approval motions.

The endorsement criticized the inclusion of unnecessary and duplicative exhibits, inadequate grounds in the notice of motion, and failures to explain the relevance of cited rules.

The motion was adjourned, a fresh record was required, and the parties were directed to choose among a revised written motion, an oral hearing, or a case conference.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits of $3,000 per month for services provided by his wife following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the expenses were not incurred under s. 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the wife ordinarily worked as a personal support worker, the applicant failed to provide adequate proof of the specific services rendered or any evidence of a promise or legal obligation to pay for them.

The application for benefits, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits (ACB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer partially paid the submitted invoices using the ratio method from Malitskiy due to a lack of sufficient particulars regarding the services provided.

The Tribunal upheld the use of the ratio method, finding the applicant failed to prove the full balance of the invoices was incurred under s. 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal awarded a minor shortfall of $86.74 in ACB with interest, but dismissed the claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The plaintiffs in two related civil actions arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident following a police pursuit brought motions under Rule 30.10 for the production of the complete investigative file of the Special Investigations Unit (SIU), a non-party.

The SIU had produced parts of its file but opposed producing witness statements without consent and other administrative or derivative documents.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the production of the civilian and police officer witness statements, finding them highly relevant to the issue of liability and that it would be unfair to require the plaintiffs to proceed to trial without them.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the balance of the file, as the plaintiffs failed to establish relevance.

The applicant, an 18-year-old pedestrian, suffered a severe traumatic brain injury when struck by a car.

He applied for non-earner benefits, which the respondent insurer denied based on insurer examinations suggesting symptom exaggeration.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting his inability to return to school, drive, play basketball, or maintain his pre-accident social life.

The Tribunal rejected the insurer's neuropsychological assessments as they were contradicted by the insurer's own catastrophic impairment assessors, who found genuine, severe cognitive deficits.

The Tribunal ordered the payment of non-earner benefits and granted a special award of 40% under Regulation 664, finding the insurer acted unreasonably by maintaining its denial despite its own catastrophic assessors' reports.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim for damages arising from a slip and fall in a hotel lobby.

The plaintiff slipped on a wet tile floor that had just been mopped behind him while he was checking in.

The court found that the hotel cleaner and desk clerk failed to verbally warn the plaintiff of the hazard, and the wet floor sign was placed behind him out of his sightline.

The court held that the defendants failed to meet their duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act and found them liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order bifurcating a jury trial so that liability would be tried first and damages later in a motor vehicle accident action involving catastrophic brain injury and complex insurance coverage issues.

The court held it lacked jurisdiction to bifurcate liability and damages where a valid jury notice had been delivered and the parties did not consent, relying on binding Court of Appeal authority.

The court further noted that even if jurisdiction existed, bifurcation would risk duplicative evidence, inconsistent findings, additional delay and cost, and could undermine settlement incentives.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the responding plaintiff.

The respondent was catastrophically injured while riding an uninsured off-road motorcycle on a private motocross track.

He applied to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund for statutory accident benefits.

The Fund denied the claim, arguing that under section 226(2) of the Insurance Act, the required insurance policy did not include accident benefits because the motorcycle did not need to be registered under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the Fund's appeal, finding that the Off-Road Vehicles Act required the motorcycle to be insured under a motor vehicle liability policy, which by definition includes statutory accident benefits.

The applicant was rendered a paraplegic in a single-vehicle motorcycle accident on a private track.

The motorcycle was uninsured.

He applied to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund for statutory accident benefits.

The Fund denied the claim, arguing that subsection 226(2) of the Insurance Act precluded payment because the vehicle was not required to be registered under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Arbitrator held that subsection 226(2) applies to contracts of insurance and does not bar a non-contractual statutory claim against the Fund under section 268(2).

The Fund was ordered to pay the statutory accident benefits to which the applicant is entitled.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer issued a Notice of Stoppage.

The applicant returned to work but later sought further benefits, filing an application for mediation more than five years after the Notice of Stoppage.

The arbitrator held that the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act and the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule was not suspended by the applicant's return to work.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicants sought partial indemnity costs following the dismissal of their application for judicial review regarding the closure of two long-term care institutions.

Although unsuccessful on the main issue of the Minister's statutory power to close the facilities, the applicants achieved partial success on the issue of consent for relocating residents.

The Divisional Court awarded the applicants a portion of their costs, emphasizing the importance of access to justice and the applicants' role in advocating for the fundamental interests of approximately 1,000 severely disabled adults.

The applicants, litigation guardians for severely developmentally delayed adults residing in Schedule I facilities, sought judicial review of the Minister of Community and Social Services' decision to close the remaining institutions.

The applicants argued the Minister lacked statutory authority under the Developmental Services Act to close the facilities.

The Divisional Court held that the Minister's broad discretionary power to establish and maintain facilities included the power to close them.

However, the Court declared that the consent of the incapable residents' substitute decision makers is required before they can be transferred to community placements, invoking the parens patriae jurisdiction to protect their fundamental interests.