David J. Levy

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries from a motor vehicle collision.

Liability was admitted, and a jury awarded general damages.

The defendant moved to dismiss the general damages award, arguing the plaintiff failed to establish that his injuries exceeded the statutory threshold for permanent, serious impairment under the Insurance Act.

The court assessed the plaintiff's credibility, finding significant inconsistencies in his testimony and reporting of pre-accident history and employment.

The court also scrutinized the expert evidence, particularly rejecting the plaintiff's psychiatric expert for acting as an advocate.

Concluding that the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary requirements to establish a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function, the court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed the plaintiff's claim for general damages.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) preliminary decision finding that the respondent was a resident of Ontario at the time of his motor vehicle accident in Alberta, and thus an 'insured person' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent had been living and working in Alberta for more than 60 days prior to the accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT reasonably applied a flexible, context-specific test for 'ordinary residence' rather than a strict physical presence test, and that the LAT's weighing of the evidence regarding the respondent's ties to Ontario was reasonable.

The insurer requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that awarded the claimant a special award under s. 10 of the Automobile Insurance Regulation for unreasonable delay in paying benefits.

The Associate Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the Tribunal made an error of law by ordering the award solely because the insurer agreed to pay the treatment plan shortly before the hearing, without evidence of unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal also breached procedural fairness by not allowing the insurer an opportunity to respond to the claimant's late request for the special award.

The order granting the s. 10 award was cancelled.

Following an arbitration hearing where the insurer was substantially successful, the insurer sought its expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's claims for income replacement and medical benefits were vexatious and improper, and that the applicant had unduly prolonged the proceedings by failing to produce documents.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses and disbursements for the hearing, excluding the pre-hearing conference, fixed at $23,055.31.

Each party was ordered to bear their own expenses for the expense hearing.

The respondent insurer sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding that the applicant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Alberta, was a resident of Ontario and therefore an "insured person" under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant had lived in Ontario on a student visa before moving to Alberta for temporary work.

The Executive Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no significant error of law or fact in the Tribunal's holistic assessment of the applicant's residency and its conclusion that his stay in Alberta was temporary while his permanent ties remained in Ontario.

The applicant, a 79-year-old passenger injured in a bus accident, sought a non-earner benefit and medical benefits.

The insurer initially denied medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) cap but later conceded the injuries were not minor and approved a disputed treatment plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as his limitations were largely due to pre-existing conditions.

However, the Tribunal awarded interest and a 50% special award on the delayed treatment plan, finding the insurer's belated decision to remove the applicant from the MIG unreasonably delayed his access to treatment.

The applicants sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the applicants failed to attend.

Their counsel appeared and successfully requested to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The insurer brought an oral motion to dismiss the applications for arbitration due to the applicants' non-attendance.

The arbitrator granted the motion, dismissing the applications and ordering the applicants to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses in the amount of $9,500 plus HST.

The applicant, who suffered catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, sought a rehabilitation benefit of $6,698.64 for travel expenses to visit family in Iran, accompanied by an attendant care provider.

The insurer denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the travel was not a necessary expense under section 16 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, nor was it a permitted type of travel expense, as it did not have a counselling or training purpose.

Claims for interest and costs were also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Alberta and applied for statutory accident benefits in Ontario.

The respondent denied the application on the basis that the applicant was a resident of Alberta.

At a preliminary hearing, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant was a resident of Ontario under the Schedule.

Applying the holistic test for residency, the Tribunal found that the applicant maintained significant ties to Ontario, including a fiancé, friends, and a rented apartment, and that his stay in Alberta was temporary.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was a resident of Ontario and an insured person entitled to seek benefits.

The plaintiffs sought costs thrown away after a civil jury trial was adjourned due to the defendant's late filing of seven critical expert reports, in contravention of Rule 53.03.

The court found the adjournment was due to the defendant's fault or responsibility, entitling the plaintiffs to costs thrown away.

The court assessed the plaintiffs' bill of costs, applying a 35% discount due to lack of detail and the speculative nature of assessing costs thrown away, and ordered the defendant to pay $17,449.02 inclusive of HST and disbursements within 30 days.

The applicant sought medical benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied four treatment plans, arguing two were statute-barred and the applicant's injuries fell within the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The Tribunal found the first treatment plan was statute-barred but the second was not.

While the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, compelling evidence of a pre-existing degenerative disc disease demonstrated he could not achieve maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

However, the applicant failed to provide evidence or submissions proving the remaining treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, resulting in their dismissal.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed an order declaring him a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

He argued the application judge erred by denying his request for an adjournment due to illness and by failing to consider his self-represented status, language barriers, and alleged brain injury.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge reasonably exercised his discretion to deny the adjournment given the appellant's history of unpaid costs and lack of proper medical evidence.

The Court also found no error in the application judge's decision to declare the appellant a vexatious litigant based on his repeated, meritless litigation against his former lawyers.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained during a recreational non-contact hockey game, alleging that an opposing player intentionally or negligently checked him into the boards and that the league operator failed to provide a safe playing environment.

The court considered the negligence standard applicable to sporting events and the doctrine of implied consent to the inherent risks of hockey.

The evidence did not establish that the opposing player acted with intent to injure or in a reckless manner outside the ordinary risks of play.

The court further held that the league had appropriate rules, referees, and disciplinary systems, and that the plaintiff had signed a clear waiver releasing the league from liability for injuries arising from hockey participation.

The action was therefore dismissed.

The applicant law firms brought an application to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent had a history of initiating multiple proceedings against his former lawyers, including solicitor negligence claims and assessments of accounts, while failing to pay numerous costs awards.

The court found the respondent's conduct met the criteria for a vexatious litigant and ordered that he may not institute or continue any proceeding without leave of the court.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently pled guilty to dangerous driving causing bodily harm, receiving a conditional discharge.

The insurer denied income replacement and housekeeping benefits, arguing the applicant was excluded under section 30 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant was not 'convicted' of a criminal offence under subsection 30(2) due to the conditional discharge, he was 'found guilty' under subsection 30(4).

Consequently, the applicant was precluded from receiving benefits from the date of the accident until the date of his conditional discharge, and any benefits held in trust for that period were to be returned to the insurer.

However, he was not precluded from receiving benefits after the charge was finally disposed of.

The insurer applied for a declaration that the respondent pedestrian was not an insured under his mother’s automobile policy because he was not a “dependant” at the time of a catastrophic accident.

The court assessed dependency under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule using a functional analysis considering financial support, duration of dependency, needs, and the ability to be self‑supporting.

The evidence showed the respondent remained primarily financially supported by his mother despite attempts to establish independence.

The court further held the insurer was estopped from denying coverage after paying statutory accident benefits for five years while the respondent relied on that assumption and lost the opportunity to pursue benefits against another insurer.

The application to terminate benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sustained catastrophic injuries, including a traumatic brain injury, in a motor vehicle accident.

A dispute arose regarding the quantum of attendant care benefits under section 16 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer reduced benefits from $6,000 to $2,132 per month, arguing the applicant's increased needs were due to post-accident drug abuse and traffic charges rather than the accident.

The arbitrator found the drug abuse was caused by the accident and that the applicant required 24-hour supervision until his rehabilitation stabilized in early 2011.

The applicant was awarded $6,000 per month for the disputed period up to March 2011, and $2,132 per month ongoing thereafter.

The parties agreed on the amount of the applicant's Loss of Earning Capacity Benefits (LECB) but disputed the commencement date.

The insurer argued entitlement should begin on January 29, 2004, when the REC DAC evaluation was completed.

The applicant argued it should begin in May 2001, when the insurer made its original LECB offer of zero.

The Arbitrator held that the goal of consumer protection is best served by making LECB entitlement commence from the date the insurer made its original LECB offer, or when it should have been made.

The Arbitrator ordered that the applicant's LECB entitlement commenced in May 2001.

In a dispute over statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, the insurer sought a pre-hearing production order for the applicant's 2006 and 2007 income tax returns.

The applicant claimed caregiver benefits, alleging he was the primary caregiver for his children.

The arbitrator found that the tax returns, specifically the child care expense deductions, were directly relevant to the caregiver claim.

The applicant was ordered to produce the requested tax returns.

The defendant in a motor vehicle accident action served a jury notice.

At the commencement of trial, the plaintiffs moved to strike the jury notice, arguing the main plaintiff, a Muslim-Canadian woman of Afghani descent, would not receive a fair trial due to post-9/11 racism and the political climate.

The trial judge struck the jury notice, taking judicial notice of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Divisional Court allowed the defendant's appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in taking judicial notice of such bias without evidence, as the facts were not so notorious as to be beyond reasonable debate.

The matter was remitted to a different trial judge.