3 total
Application for income replacement benefits dismissed as statute-barred; extension of time denied.
The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The insurer denied the benefits, and the applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal 59 days after the two-year limitation period expired.
The applicant requested an extension of time under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.
Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal found no reasonable explanation for the delay and declined to extend the limitation period.
The application was dismissed as statute-barred.
Motion to allow defendant to attend plaintiff's discovery dismissed due to likelihood of intimidation.
The defendant brought a motion to compel the 83-year-old plaintiff to attend an examination for discovery with the defendant present.
The plaintiff, who alleged the defendant (her son) misappropriated her funds and breached his fiduciary duty, argued she would be intimidated by his presence.
The court found that the plaintiff established cause for the defendant's exclusion, noting the likelihood of intimidation and disruption, and the lack of prejudice to the defendant.
The motion was dismissed, and the discovery was ordered to proceed without the defendant present.
Judicial review dismissed; denial of loss of earning capacity benefits under SABS upheld and Charter challenge rejected.
The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a Director's Delegate upholding an arbitration decision that denied him Loss of Earning Capacity Benefits (LECBs) under the 1994 Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The applicant argued the Delegate's interpretation of s. 20.1 was unreasonable and that the provision violated s. 15 of the Charter by discriminating on the basis of age.
The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Delegate's interpretation of the regulation was reasonable and that the applicant did not have a vested right to LECBs.
The Court also upheld the Delegate's finding that s. 20.1 did not create a discriminatory distinction based on age.
