David H. Sookram

The plaintiffs were involved in a motor vehicle accident when a third party swerved to avoid an unidentified driver and collided with their vehicle.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiffs successfully moved to add the third party as a defendant under rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The third party appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that adding the third party as a defendant would cause significant prejudice due to the 'one percent rule' regarding unidentified motorist coverage, and that the motions judge erred in finding special circumstances.

The insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received Statutory Accident Benefits until a dispute arose.

After commencing litigation, the parties settled at a private mediation.

The insured later retained new counsel and successfully moved to rescind the settlement, arguing the insurer failed to comply with disclosure requirements under section 9.1 of the Automobile Insurance Regulation.

The insurer appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 9.1 does not apply to settlements reached after litigation has commenced.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits after 156 weeks, arguing that the appellant's ongoing neuropathic leg pain was not caused by the accident.

An arbitrator dismissed the appellant's claim for ongoing benefits, preferring the medical evidence that a causal link was unlikely given the delayed onset of symptoms.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding no error in the assessment of the expert medical evidence regarding causation.

The appeal was dismissed and no appeal expenses were awarded.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in January 1991 and received statutory accident benefits until January 1995.

He subsequently developed severe neuropathic pain in his left leg and sought ongoing weekly income benefits and medical benefits.

The insurer disputed that the neuropathic condition was caused by the accident.

The arbitrator reviewed extensive medical evidence and testimony, noting a significant time lag between the accident and the onset of the leg pain.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident caused the neuropathic condition.

Consequently, the claims for ongoing benefits were dismissed.

The insurer's claim for repayment was also dismissed, and the applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses.