David Matthew Schell

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal to Refuse to Renew its licence under the New Home Construction Licensing Act, 2017.

The Registrar alleged the appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible due to the loss of project financing and the improper use of unavoidable delay provisions to retain purchaser deposits.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's loss of financing, acts of default, and unreasonable reliance on pandemic-related unavoidable delay to avoid refunding deposits provided reasonable grounds to believe it would not be financially responsible.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the refusal to renew.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and massage services, a physiatry assessment, and a chronic pain assessment following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatment and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal noted a significant gap of over three years where the applicant did not report accident-related pain to his physicians, breaking the causal link to the accident.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a permanent order prohibiting a resident, Paolo Scotti, from residing in his unit due to disruptive and aggressive behaviour stemming from his mental illness.

The court found that Mr. Scotti had breached condominium rules but declined to issue a permanent vacating order, noting his mental illness as the cause of misconduct and his recent efforts to comply with treatment.

The court ordered Mr. Scotti to comply with the Condominium Act and condominium instruments but granted no further relief to the applicant, emphasizing the duty to accommodate and the lack of evidence of material breach of the prior interlocutory order.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied certain benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injuries Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed her injuries were outside the MIG due to chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish chronic pain under the AMA Guides criteria, noting her lack of engagement with treatment and failure to follow medical recommendations.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limits.

The applicant was also found not entitled to income replacement benefits as she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The applicant was struck by a transit bus while crossing an intersection and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold, preferring the respondent's medical experts who concluded her psychological challenges stemmed from pre-existing learning difficulties rather than the accident, and that she did not suffer from post-concussion syndrome.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $2,400 for a chronic pain assessment plan, finding the assessment was reasonable at the time it was proposed, and awarded interest because the respondent failed to provide proper medical reasons for its denial.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a treatment plan totaling $1,982.44.

The respondent denied the treatment plan on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that maximum medical recovery had been achieved.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, either due to chronic pain or a pre-existing condition.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove that the proposed treatment plan was reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, a paraplegic, was charged with sexual assault against his Personal Support Worker (PSW).

The complainant alleged the accused groped and kissed her during a routine morning visit, which the accused denied.

Applying the W.D. credibility analysis, the court found the accused not credible due to evasive testimony regarding his physical capabilities.

The complainant was found credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies, with the court noting her demeanor, lack of exaggeration, and absence of a financial motive to fabricate.

The court emphasized the cautious use of demeanor and post-offence conduct as credibility factors.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion arguing the plaintiff was barred from recovering non-pecuniary and health care damages under the Insurance Act.

The jury had awarded $10,000 in general damages and $37,133.13 in medical expenses.

The trial judge applied the three-pronged test from Meyer v. Bright and found the plaintiff, a former school principal, suffered permanent serious impairment due to chronic pain syndrome and soft tissue injuries.

The court held the plaintiff met the statutory threshold, dismissing the defendants' motion and allowing the plaintiff to recover the damages awarded by the jury.

The applicant, an emergency nurse, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 week income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing she was not substantially disabled.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment due to her ongoing physical restrictions and the unlikelihood of being hired for sedentary work given her age and disability.

The arbitrator also held that a lump-sum settlement from a collateral carrier could not be deducted from the income replacement benefits.

A special award of $23,000 was granted because the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by failing to meaningfully adjust the claim after the 104-week mark.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits from the insurer.

The insurer later sought to deduct long-term disability benefits that it claimed were available to the applicant through her employer.

The applicant had no knowledge of the collateral benefits, and her employer had incorrectly indicated on an OCF-2 form that she was not eligible for them.

The arbitrator held that the long-term disability benefits were not 'available' to the applicant under section 7(1)1(ii) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because she had no knowledge of their existence and reasonably relied on her employer's incorrect reporting.

Therefore, the insurer was not entitled to deduct the benefits.

The appellant was awarded $20,000 in general damages by a jury in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The trial judge deprived the appellant of costs under Rule 76.13, finding it was unreasonable to proceed outside the simplified procedure regime.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's costs ruling could not be reconciled with his pre-verdict assessment of the case, including his jury instruction suggesting a range up to $75,000 and his dismissal of the respondents' threshold motion.

The appellant was awarded costs of the action and the appeal.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from her insurer.

The insurer denied a physiotherapy treatment plan, terminated housekeeping benefits, and refused to pay for several medical assessments.

At arbitration, the arbitrator found the physiotherapy treatment plan to be reasonable and necessary, rejecting the insurer's DAC assessor whose opinion improperly relied on vehicle damage estimates.

The arbitrator also reinstated the housekeeping benefits, finding the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident chores, and preferred the evidence of the applicant and her family over the insurer's occupational therapist.

The arbitrator awarded the cost of one orthopaedic assessment but denied two others because the applicant failed to follow the required pre-approval process.

Interest was awarded on the overdue housekeeping benefits.

The appellants appealed a decision finding that the respondent's use of property for horse-related activities was a legal non-conforming use under the zoning by-law.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the application judge's findings were supported by the record and that section 45(2) of the Planning Act did not apply.

The respondent's cross-appeal on costs was allowed, as the application judge erred in denying costs based on pre-litigation conduct.