David Wilson

The applicant sought reimbursement for disbursements, primarily medical reports, incurred in respect of an interim benefits motion.

The insurer objected to paying for reports prepared before benefits were terminated, arguing they were not dispute resolution expenses.

The arbitrator held that pre-termination reports could be recovered if they were 'in furtherance' of the proceeding and 'necessary and useful' to the arbitrator.

Only the report explicitly relied upon in the interim benefits decision was allowed, resulting in an award of $7,251.99 plus HST.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment, the arbitrator considered the issue of expenses.

The insurer sought its expenses for the three-day hearing.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's argument that the insurer's failure to make a written offer to settle should militate against a costs award, noting the insurer had a strong defence and that paying for treatment would only reinforce the applicant's disabled lifestyle.

The insurer was awarded its expenses of the arbitration proceeding, with the amount to be determined after further submissions.

The appellant insurer and respondent insured both sought their legal expenses following an appeal regarding the termination of statutory accident benefits.

The Director's Delegate had previously varied the arbitrator's decision by making the benefits order interim pending a final hearing.

Applying the criteria under section 12(2) of O. Reg. 664, the Delegate found that given the mixed success on appeal, the novelty of the legal issue, and the technicality of the question, it was appropriate for each party to bear its own legal expenses.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to refuse an application for a liquor sales licence by the applicants for their restaurant.

The matter was resolved when the Registrar withdrew the objections upon the applicants agreeing to specific conditions, including restricting one applicant's role to the kitchen and prohibiting his involvement in liquor sales or management.

The Board approved the application subject to the agreed conditions.

The applicant sought bail pending his appeal against conviction for selling cocaine.

The applicant argued that the trial verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge made errors in analyzing the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding no merit in the appeal given the overwhelming identification evidence from undercover and surveillance officers, the recovery of marked money, and the seizure of the cell phone used to arrange the drug buys.

The appellant appealed his convictions for drug trafficking offences and his six-year sentence.

He argued that errors by the Vietnamese interpreter deprived him of his right to make full answer and defence, and that the trial judge erred in applying the parity principle given his co-accused's four-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the translation errors minor.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the court found no error in the trial judge's application of the parity principle, noting the co-accused had pleaded guilty.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his solicitor negligence action for delay under Rule 24.01(1).

This was the appellant's third action dismissed for delay, stemming from a 1956 construction contract dispute.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's findings that the appellant was responsible for the delay, that there was no justifiable excuse, and that the defendants suffered prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a health care aide, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits for 104 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing she could perform alternative employment.

The arbitrator found the insurer's vocational assessments relied on erroneous assumptions about the applicant's education and skills.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment and awarded ongoing benefits.

Additionally, the arbitrator ordered a special award of 50 per cent of outstanding benefits, finding the insurer unreasonably withheld payments by ignoring credible evidence of the applicant's limitations.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received no-fault benefits.

The insurer subsequently required her to attend independent orthopaedic and psychiatric examinations to verify her medical condition, as her family doctor's report was ambiguous regarding the cause of her chronic pain and depression.

The applicant failed to attend both examinations, arguing through counsel that the insurer was not entitled to two examinations and expressing concern over the potential use of the medical reports in other tort actions.

The arbitrator held that the insurer reasonably required both examinations under s. 23(2) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule, and that the applicant failed to attend without reasonable justification.

The arbitrator found that the insurer was not made aware of any medical reasons preventing the applicant's attendance at the time the examinations were scheduled.

The appellant, a member of the regular armed forces, was convicted by a Standing Court Martial of trafficking and possession of narcotics under the Narcotic Control Act, pursuant to section 120 of the National Defence Act.

He appealed on the grounds that trial by a military tribunal for ordinary criminal offences deprived him of his right to an independent and impartial tribunal and his right to equality before the law under the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the military justice system was established pursuant to a valid federal objective under section 91(7) of the British North America Act and did not offend the Canadian Bill of Rights.