Deborah Janice Lewis

Following a five-day jury trial where the plaintiffs were awarded a net judgment of $18,000, the court addressed the parties' submissions on pre-judgment interest and costs.

The plaintiffs sought approximately $114,000 in partial indemnity costs plus disbursements, while the defendant argued against any costs award, contending the recovery fell within Small Claims or Simplified Rules jurisdiction, and sought costs for abandoned claims.

The court found that both parties' litigation strategies were inconsistent with the trial outcome, particularly noting the defendant's "no liability" stance and lack of a Rule 49 offer.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $50,000 in costs plus HST and $18,677.42 in disbursements, emphasizing that a defendant's failure to realistically assess risk can lead to a costs award even for a low judgment.

The defendant's request for costs on abandoned claims was denied.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision barring her civil action against the respondents for injuries sustained in a parking lot fall.

The Tribunal found that although the applicant was paid by a numbered company, the respondent Sargent Farms Limited was her de facto employer and she was in the course of her employment at the time of the accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's conclusion that the respondent extensively controlled her employment was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after a heavy metal garage door fell on him while he was walking through a doorway at a storage facility.

He had been loading items into a parked truck.

The insurer denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The arbitrator found that while loading a vehicle is an ordinary use, the use or operation of the vehicle did not directly cause the applicant's injuries.

The falling garage door was an intervening act and the dominant feature of the incident.

The application for arbitration was dismissed.

The insurer sought leave to appeal and a stay of an arbitrator's preliminary order requiring it to fund a catastrophic impairment assessment.

The Director's Delegate rejected the appeal at this time, finding it more efficient to wait until the main arbitration concluded to avoid a multiplicity of appeals.

The request for a stay of the arbitrator's order was also denied, as the insurer was in a better position to bear the risk of non-recovery than the insured person.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and exhausted her medical and rehabilitation benefits.

She applied for funding for a Catastrophic Impairment Assessment to access the next tier of benefits.

The insurer denied the request, arguing that the assessment costs were subject to the exhausted $50,000 limit under section 18 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Arbitrator held that a catastrophic impairment determination is a process, not a benefit, and the assessment expenses are payable under section 25 of the Schedule, independent of the section 18 limits.

The insurer was ordered to pay the $9,492 assessment expense.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment under Rule 19.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure after the defendant was noted in default in a motor vehicle accident action.

The court found the defendant entirely liable for the collision and accepted evidence that the plaintiff suffered chronic pain, orthopedic injuries, and depression that significantly impaired his ability to perform flooring installation work.

The court held that the plaintiff met the statutory threshold under s. 267.5(3) of the Insurance Act for a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

Non‑pecuniary damages were assessed at $65,000 before the statutory deductible, with additional awards for future housekeeping capacity, future medical expenses, and loss of future earning capacity.

Claims for past income loss and past housekeeping expenses were dismissed for lack of sufficient proof.

The owner of a motor vehicle brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims arising from a motor vehicle accident caused by the owner’s minor son.

The owner argued that he did not provide express or implied consent for his unlicensed son to operate the vehicle, relying on s.192 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court applied the summary judgment framework from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch and considered whether implied consent could be determined on the evidentiary record.

Finding the son knew he lacked permission, had never previously driven the vehicle, and had taken the keys without authorization, the court concluded there was no express or implied consent.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the claim against the vehicle owner.

The applicant, a designated employer bargaining agency, filed a complaint alleging that the respondent companies and trade unions violated the Labour Relations Act by continuing to work and supply employees during a lawful strike in the industrial, commercial and institutional (ICI) sector.

The respondents argued that pneumatic control work was governed by a separate national agreement and fell outside the provincial agreement.

The Board found that the respondent companies perform pneumatic control installation work within the ICI sector, which is a specialization of the plumbing and pipe fitting trade.

The Board declared the national agreement null and void in the ICI sector, but delayed the effect of the declaration until the expiration of the current provincial agreement to allow the parties to integrate the work.