4 total
Rule 7 settlement quantum approved, but further information required regarding the proposed use of funds.
The applicant brought a Rule 7 motion for approval of a $1,350,000 settlement of accident benefits claims for a party under disability.
The court approved the quantum but required further information regarding the proposed use of the settlement funds, directing the applicant to provide an affidavit addressing concerns raised by the Public Guardian and Trustee.
Adjournment granted due to applicant's medical inability to participate following a motor vehicle accident.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing due to a concussion sustained in a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent did not oppose the request but objected to the requested six-month delay.
The Tribunal found that the medical evidence supported a brief adjournment and constituted an extraordinary circumstance.
The hearing was adjourned for at least three months, as recommended by the applicant's physician.
Joint title to farm and house held in resulting trust; respondent awarded monetary compensation.
Former unmarried partners disputed beneficial ownership of a house and family farm that had been transferred into joint title during their relationship.
The applicant argued the respondent held her registered interest in trust and that title had been transferred only to protect her anticipated financial contributions.
The court applied resulting trust, constructive trust, and unjust enrichment principles following Kerr v. Baranow and Pecore v. Pecore.
It concluded the transfers were not intended as a gift of beneficial ownership and that the respondent held title in trust for the applicant subject to compensation for her financial and labour contributions.
Title was ordered vested in the applicant upon payment of a monetary award reflecting the respondent’s contributions.
Accident benefits denied because injuries from exposure after leaving a stuck vehicle lacked direct causation.
The respondent's vehicle became stuck on a country road on a cold winter night.
She left the vehicle to seek help, became disoriented, fell into a river, and suffered severe frostbite requiring amputations.
She claimed statutory accident benefits.
The insurer denied the claim, arguing the injuries were not directly caused by the use or operation of an automobile.
The motions judge ruled in favour of the respondent.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, holding that while the respondent met the purpose test, she failed the causation test because the use of the vehicle was not a direct cause of her injuries due to numerous intervening acts.
