David S. Wilson

The applicant sought an oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations Act arising from a dispute between brothers who each owned 50% of a family produce business.

The applicant alleged the responding shareholder operated the company for the benefit of himself and his family, including alleged undisclosed cash transactions, misuse of company assets, and failure to provide financial disclosure.

The court held that the applicant failed to establish reasonable expectations necessary to ground an oppression claim.

The evidence did not demonstrate oppressive, unfairly prejudicial, or unfairly disregarding conduct within the meaning of the statute.

While the oppression remedy was dismissed, the court ordered the sale of the jointly owned property where the business operated under specified terms pursuant to the Partition Act.

Following the settlement of a motor vehicle accident claim on the eve of trial, the court was asked to approve the settlement of a Family Law Act claim for a party under a disability and to fix costs.

The court approved the FLA settlement at $30,000 plus interest.

On the issue of costs, the court held that the plaintiff was entitled to claim time spent recovering accident benefits as part of the tort action costs, as the two are inextricably linked.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $100,000 for fees and $44,534.29 for disbursements on a partial indemnity basis, and awarded interest on the delayed settlement funds.

Following a successful appeal that set aside orders directing an assessment of the appellant's legal fees, the parties submitted written arguments regarding costs.

The Court of Appeal fixed the costs of the appeal, including a previous motion to quash, at $10,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes in favour of the appellant.

The Court also confirmed that any monies paid on account of the previous costs award must be returned.

The appellant law firm appealed an order refusing to set aside a consent order that referred its account to an assessment officer.

The client had retained the firm under a contingency fee agreement to pursue a long-term disability claim, which settled.

The client later sought an assessment of the account.

A dispute arose over the validity of the contingency fee agreement.

The Court of Appeal held that an assessment officer generally lacks jurisdiction to determine disputes regarding the validity or effect of a retainer agreement, including contingency fee agreements.

Such disputes should be determined by a judge.

The appeal was allowed, the consent order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Superior Court of Justice.

The applicant sought expenses following an arbitration hearing where he achieved partial success, primarily on the issue of income replacement benefits.

The insurer argued for a reduction in expenses to reflect this partial success and challenged certain witness fees.

The arbitrator allowed the witness fees as prudent preparation and found the preparation time reasonable.

However, recognizing that the applicant was unsuccessful on several other claims that consumed hearing time, the arbitrator reduced the recoverable counsel fees by 30% and disbursements by 10%.

The applicant was awarded total expenses of $35,084.75, including the costs of the expense hearing.

The Appellant insurer appealed an Arbitrator's decision ordering it to pay $995 for an MRI and interest on overdue benefits at 2% per month under the Old Regulation.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal regarding the MRI, finding that the Arbitrator erred in law by not applying the 'reasonably available' test under subsection 60(2) of the Old Regulation, as OHIP had paid for the MRI within five weeks.

However, the Delegate dismissed the appeal regarding interest, finding that the insured had a vested contractual right to the 2% interest rate under the Old Regulation, and the transitional provisions in the New Regulation did not clearly rebut the presumption against interference with vested rights.

The insurer was wholly successful on an appeal regarding an arbitration expenses award and sought its legal expenses for the appeal.

The Director's Delegate found that the appeal did not raise novel issues and that the insurer's success entitled it to its legal expenses.

The Delegate reduced the claimed preparation time and awarded the insurer $1,078.55 in total expenses, inclusive of HST and disbursements, calculated at the Legal Aid rate plus experience allowance.

The applicant sought arbitration for statutory accident benefits following a 2005 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the application was statute-barred as it was filed more than two years after the refusal to pay benefits.

The applicant contended the refusal was invalid because the insurer failed to offer a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) examination, a requirement that was abolished during the transition period.

The arbitrator found the insurer was not required to offer a DAC assessment because the negative reports triggering the refusal were received after the DAC system was abolished.

The termination notice was valid, and the application for arbitration was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought his expenses of the arbitration after being granted income replacement benefits but denied other claims.

The insurer sought reimbursement of its expenses, arguing the applicant prolonged and obstructed the process.

The arbitrator found no evidence of delay or obstruction by the applicant and noted his modest success entitled him to a modest recovery of expenses.

The arbitrator applied a ratio method to reduce the claimed legal fees and disallowed or reduced several disbursements, including rejecting an expert report that violated the expert's duty to the Tribunal.

The insurer was ordered to pay the applicant $18,918.77 for his arbitration expenses.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff to attend additional defence medical examinations and to strike the impending trial date.

The plaintiffs raised a preliminary objection that the defendants required leave under Rule 48.04(1) because the action had been set down for trial.

The court dismissed the preliminary objection, finding the defendants had not consented to the action being placed on the trial list.

On the substantive issue, the court dismissed the motion for further medical examinations, holding that the defendants failed to provide sufficient medical or factual evidence to justify the request under Rule 33.02(2) and the Bonello principles.

Following a jury trial involving two related actions, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The court held that the same cost considerations applied to both plaintiffs in the related proceedings.

As a result, the plaintiff in this action was ordered to pay costs to the defendants.

The court fixed the costs payable at $35,000.

Following a finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld income replacement and housekeeping benefits, the arbitrator determined the quantum of a special award under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act.

The insurer had terminated benefits despite its own assessors concluding the applicant was unable to work and required housekeeping assistance.

The arbitrator fixed the special award at $58,000, representing approximately 20% of the withheld payments inclusive of interest, to punish the insurer's blameworthy conduct and deter future similar actions.

Following the dismissal of the insurer's motion to stay the arbitration, the applicant sought her expenses for the motion and expenses 'thrown away' due to the delayed arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was completely successful on the motion and that the delay was caused solely by the insurer's conduct.

The applicant was awarded her expenses in the amount of $6,034.20, inclusive of HST.

The insurer brought a motion to compel the applicant to attend a new psychiatric assessment for catastrophic impairment after the original assessor, Dr. Shapiro, passed away.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the insurer failed to provide evidentiary support that a new examination was reasonably necessary under section 44(1) of the Schedule.

The arbitrator noted that Dr. Shapiro's report was already completed and admissible, and the applicant was prepared to waive his right to cross-examine the deceased author.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, attendant care, housekeeping, and medical benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's left knee impairment was caused by the accident, despite pre-existing arthritis, and that his ongoing impairments rendered him completely unable to engage in any suitable employment, entitling him to ongoing income replacement benefits.

Claims for attendant care and medical benefits were dismissed as the applicant was independent in self-care and the proposed treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

Housekeeping benefits were granted in part.

The arbitrator also awarded interest at the rate of 2% per month under the Old SABS, finding that the transitional provisions of the New SABS did not erode the right to the old interest rate for benefits that became overdue.

The appellant insurer sought a stay of an arbitrator's order pending appeal.

The arbitrator had ordered the insurer to pay $995 for an MRI and to pay interest on overdue benefits at 2% per month.

The respondent did not oppose the stay regarding the MRI payment, which was granted.

However, the respondent opposed the stay of the interest order, citing severe financial hardship.

The Director's Delegate found that while the appeal raised a novel question of law regarding the interest rate, the insurer claimed no hardship, whereas the respondent provided unchallenged evidence of significant financial distress.

The request to stay the interest award was therefore dismissed.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's costs order following the withdrawal of the insurer's variation application.

The appellant argued the arbitrator erred by disallowing counsel's travel time, applying a multiple to hearing time to calculate preparation time rather than using actual docketed hours, and disallowing a disbursement for a psychological report.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the arbitrator's exercise of discretion.

Travel time is generally not compensable, the use of a 4:1 ratio for preparation time appropriately compensated for wasted preparation, and the expert report was reasonably found to be unhelpful and unnecessary for the hearing.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents in 2007.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence to be unreliable due to poor recall and contradictions with documentary evidence, including Ontario Works records showing he had returned to work.

Relying on the medical evidence, particularly the applicant's orthopaedic surgeon, the arbitrator concluded the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment for a limited period.

The applicant was awarded income replacement benefits from July 7, 2009, to August 1, 2010, but his claims for various assessment costs and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant, a self-employed plumber, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated income replacement and housekeeping benefits and denied various medical benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment due to his injuries, which aggravated pre-existing conditions, and awarded ongoing income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator also awarded the claimed medical benefits, housekeeping benefits, the cost of an MRI, and interest at 2% per month.

A special award was granted against the insurer for unreasonably withholding payments, with the amount to be determined.

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

The insurer terminated benefits after conducting section 42 assessments but failed to request a new disability certificate prior to the assessments, relying instead on an eight-week-old certificate.

The applicant moved for interim benefits based solely on this procedural breach.

The arbitrator found that while the insurer breached section 37(1)(a) of the Schedule by failing to request a new disability certificate, this breach did not automatically entitle the applicant to interim benefits.

The applicant was still required to show a prima facie case, urgency, or compelling need, which she failed to do.

The motion for interim benefits was dismissed.