David J. Levy

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 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 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.

The insurer appealed an arbitration order regarding the calculation of income replacement benefits (IRBs), interest, and a special award under the SABS-1994.

The Director's Delegate held that the 75% deduction rate for post-accident income under s. 10(4) applies only to a single 26-week period, reversing the arbitrator's application of the lower rate to multiple jobs.

The Delegate upheld the finding that a lump sum lay-off payment was termination pay excluded from income under s. 87.

The Delegate reversed the interest award, finding interest was only payable from 14 days after the insured requested mediation, due to his four-year delay in seeking reinstatement of benefits.

Finally, the Delegate upheld a 15% special award, finding the insurer unreasonably relied on a deficient ergonomist report to terminate benefits.

AXA Insurance Company appealed an arbitration order awarding Mario Rocca income replacement benefits beyond the 104-week mark and a $10,000 special award.

Rocca cross-appealed the calculation of his benefits regarding commission income.

The Director's Delegate found that despite the arbitrator's adverse credibility findings against Rocca, there was sufficient objective medical evidence, including an MRI showing a large disc herniation, to support the conclusion that he was disabled from the physical aspects of his pre-accident job.

The Director's Delegate also upheld the special award, finding the insurer unreasonably reduced benefits to the minimum level without an objective basis.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The insured person was injured in a motor vehicle accident and commenced both a court action and an arbitration proceeding for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer appealed an arbitration order that allowed the arbitration to proceed despite the concurrent court action.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator erred by focusing only on whether the specific benefits claimed were different, rather than considering the substantial factual overlap between the two proceedings.

Applying the criteria for avoiding multiple proceedings, the Director's Delegate stayed the arbitration pending the outcome of the court action, noting that the court action was broader in scope and involved overlapping medical evidence and causation issues.