Debbie Orth

The insurer requested production of the draft reports and foundation material of the applicant's accounting and occupational therapy experts.

The applicant refused, claiming litigation privilege and arguing that the pre-hearing stage was too early to compel disclosure.

The arbitrator held that by voluntarily disclosing the experts' reports in his pre-hearing brief, the applicant impliedly waived litigation privilege over the foundation material (notes, draft reports, technical data, and test results) relied upon by the experts.

The applicant was ordered to produce this material, but was not required to produce counsel's instruction letters to the experts, as they were deemed irrelevant.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement and non-earner benefits, following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator found the applicant was not entitled to income replacement benefits because he was not employed or self-employed at the time of the accident, as his pawn shop business had not yet opened.

The claim for non-earner benefits was also dismissed because the applicant failed to prove the accident caused or materially contributed to his impairments, given his extensive pre-existing medical conditions and similar pre-accident complaints.

Claims for a special award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his action for injurious falsehood as statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant knew all relevant facts triggering the limitation period more than two years before commencing the action, as he had already suffered damages in the form of professional time spent refuting the allegations.

The appeal was dismissed, but the motion costs were corrected due to an addition error.

The appellant, a former law student, sued three classmates, the Dean of Law, and the University of Ottawa for defamation, slander, and negligence arising from allegations of sexual harassment.

The trial judge dismissed the action.

On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge's reasons demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias based on a perceived stereotype that the appellant suffered from a mental illness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's comments were descriptors of the appellant's conduct and that the appellant had put his own mental health in issue.

The trial judge's adverse credibility findings were amply supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of claim against the respondent university.

The Court of Appeal found that although the procedure followed below was unclear, the motion judge was entitled to strike the pleading under Rule 25.11 as being untenable in law, given the dispute was essentially an academic matter.

The court also upheld the refusal to grant leave to file a fresh statement of claim in contract, concluding the claim could not possibly succeed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

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

The insurer brought a motion on a preliminary issue, arguing that the applicant was precluded from proceeding to arbitration because her application was filed beyond the two-year limitation period and because she failed to mediate the issue of income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed the insurer's motion, finding that the insurer failed to prove the application was filed out of time.

Furthermore, the arbitrator held that the issue of income replacement benefits had been mediated, noting that the applicant, a francophone, was disadvantaged by the failure to provide the mediator's report in French.

The insurer appealed an arbitration order requiring it to pay ongoing income replacement benefits and a special award to the respondent, a self-employed home daycare provider injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the arbitrator erred in assessing the physical demands of the respondent's job and in rejecting the evidence of the Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) assessors, who concluded she could return to work.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the arbitrator's preference for the respondent's medical evidence over the DAC assessment, nor in the finding that the insurer acted unreasonably in terminating benefits on multiple occasions.

The applicant was successful in an arbitration for statutory accident benefits and was awarded her expenses.

In this expense assessment, the arbitrator determined the quantum of legal fees and disbursements payable by the insurer.

The arbitrator allowed a 3:1 ratio for preparation to hearing time, resulting in 260 hours for lead counsel.

The arbitrator also awarded an enhanced hourly rate of $150, noting that the insurer had unreasonably refused a settlement offer.

Additional fees were awarded for previous counsel, an articling student, and law clerks, along with disbursements including expert witness fees and court reporting services.

Following an arbitration regarding statutory accident benefits where the applicant was awarded a small portion of the claimed death benefits, both parties sought their expenses.

The arbitrator considered the criteria under the Insurance Act and Regulation 664, including the applicant's lack of success, the conduct of both parties, and the complexity of the issues.

The arbitrator concluded that neither party was entitled to their expenses, ordering each party to bear their own costs.

The applicant, a child care provider, was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated her weekly income replacement benefits on multiple occasions.

The arbitrator found the applicant credible and accepted medical evidence that she developed chronic pain syndrome as a result of the accident, rendering her substantially disabled from performing the essential tasks of her employment.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay income replacement benefits for the disputed periods and ongoing.

Additionally, the arbitrator found the insurer acted unreasonably in prematurely terminating benefits and awarded a special award of $3,500, along with interest and arbitration expenses.