Doug Wright

The applicant, who suffered a leg amputation in a motorcycle accident and was deemed catastrophically impaired, sought various statutory accident benefits denied by the respondent insurer.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits at a reduced rate of $3,000 per month, finding the applicant did not require 24-hour care.

The Tribunal also granted numerous medical and rehabilitation benefits, including occupational therapy, medical cannabis, and short-term alternative housing.

However, the claim for over $1.1 million for alternative accessible housing was denied because the applicant's housing expert failed to assess a potentially viable property jointly owned by the applicant.

The claim for a special award under Regulation 664 was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not found to be unreasonable.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to strike the defendants’ civil jury notice in a motor vehicle personal injury action, arguing that pandemic-related suspension of jury trials created unacceptable delay and prejudice.

The court granted leave to bring the motion but dismissed the request to strike the jury notice, holding that the moving party had not met the substantial onus of showing that justice would be better served by a judge-alone trial.

The court found the evidentiary record deficient on both sides, noted that civil jury trials in Toronto had an anticipated resumption date rather than an indefinite suspension, and accepted that a wait-and-see approach was appropriate in the circumstances.

The dismissal was without prejudice to a future renewed motion.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic brain injury in a motorcycle accident, sought $7,017.40 for the unapproved portion of a home modification assessment treatment plan.

The insurer had partially approved the plan up to the $2,000 cap for assessments.

The Tribunal found that the home modification assessment involved an appraisal of the applicant's health status and functional limitations, and was therefore subject to the $2,000 cap under s. 25(5)(a) of the Schedule.

The application for the unapproved balance and interest was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that found him catastrophically impaired but denied post-104 income replacement benefits, attendant care, housekeeping, and a special award.

The applicant argued the denial of these benefits was logically inconsistent with the catastrophic impairment finding.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no significant errors of law or fact in the original decision.

The adjudicator held that the applicant's psychological impairments, which warranted the catastrophic designation, did not preclude him from performing his pre-accident casual work, and that the attendant care and housekeeping benefits were properly denied as they were not incurred.

The applicant was injured in a bicycle-motorcycle collision and sought various statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment (CAT).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a marked impairment in the adaptation domain resulting from psychological and behavioural disorders.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for post-104 week income replacement benefits, finding he did not suffer a complete inability to work.

Claims for attendant care and housekeeping benefits were also dismissed because the applicant failed to prove his father, the service provider, suffered an economic loss.

A claim for a special award was denied as the insurer did not unreasonably withhold benefits.

The Attorney General of Canada appealed a summary judgment decision that found it liable for negligence in failing to keep an inmate reasonably safe while housed at Millhaven Institution, a maximum security penitentiary.

The inmate was assaulted by three other inmates in his cell during a prison strike.

The motion judge granted summary judgment on liability, finding the Crown negligent in its placement of the inmate, failure to maintain surveillance, failure to respond to cell alarms, and failure to prevent cell access.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge exceeded his authority by making unjustified findings of fact on an inadequate evidentiary record and applying an incorrect legal standard for causation.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of his detention, search, and arrest in connection with a series of street robberies in the York Village area.

The court found multiple Charter violations: an unlawful detention without reasonable grounds, an illegal search, and a failure to inform the accused of his right to counsel without delay.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these violations, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant Attorney General of Canada moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' negligence claim arising from a severe assault on the plaintiff inmate by three other inmates at Millhaven Institution.

The court found that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) breached its duty of care by placing the non-violent plaintiff with highly violent offenders, failing to enforce cell door protocols, ignoring the plaintiff's emergency cell alarm, and lacking adequate video surveillance.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on liability because the evidence overwhelmingly established CSC's negligence and causation.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs on liability, with damages to be determined at a subsequent trial.

A young person, age 19, pleaded guilty to conveying a false message contrary to s. 372 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant called 911 reporting a false armed threat at a community centre, describing himself as the armed individual, with the intention of provoking police to shoot him ("suicide by cop").

The Crown sought a nine-month conditional sentence followed by three years probation.

The defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with three years probation, finding that despite the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's youth, first-offender status, genuine remorse, strong pro-social character, and the mental health crisis underlying the offence warranted rehabilitation-focused sentencing rather than incarceration or conviction.

In a pedestrian–streetcar collision action, a transit authority brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim against its municipal co‑defendant.

The moving party argued that it would assume responsibility for maintenance of trees on a median that allegedly obstructed the streetcar operator’s view and relied on statutory provisions of the City of Toronto Act.

The court held that the summary judgment rules could permit a defendant to seek dismissal of a claim against a co‑defendant, but the evidentiary record revealed genuine issues requiring a trial regarding responsibility for the median and trees.

Ownership of the land remained with the municipality and the statutory provision did not bar claims where the property was not the transit authority’s.

The motion was dismissed and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The accused, charged with five indictable offences including assault, mischief, threatening death, and breaching bail conditions, sought release on bail.

The Crown sought detention on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found that the accused had failed to meet his onus under the reverse onus provisions.

The proposed plan of release, involving three sureties and house arrest, was deemed inadequate given the serious nature of the allegations, the accused's apparent disregard for court orders, and the sureties' lack of knowledge regarding the accused's activities and lifestyle.

The court concluded there was a substantial likelihood the accused would commit further criminal offences endangering public safety, particularly that of the vulnerable complainant.

The plaintiffs brought an action alleging negligence and breach of contract arising from the failure to commence a personal injury action within the limitation period after an automobile accident.

They sued a paralegal firm and a law firm alleged to have promoted a partnership relationship with the paralegal provider.

The lawyer defendants brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the claim on the basis that the plaintiffs were not their clients and that the individual lawyers were protected as members of a limited liability partnership.

The court struck the claims against the individual lawyers without leave to amend, finding they were not partners in the alleged partnership and had no viable claim against them.

However, the court held it was not plain and obvious that the law firm owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs given representations suggesting a partnership relationship, and granted leave to amend the pleading to pursue claims against the firm for vicarious liability, professional negligence, and negligent misrepresentation.

The insurer appealed and the claimant cross-appealed an Arbitrator's decision regarding attendant care benefits (ACBs) and a special award for unreasonably withheld income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate corrected mathematical and rate errors in the Arbitrator's ACB calculation, increasing the monthly amount to $1,615.32.

The Delegate upheld the Arbitrator's factual finding that the claimant did not require 24-hour supervisory care, preferring the insurer's occupational therapy evidence over the claimant's assessor, who was found to lack objectivity.

The Delegate also held that section 39(3) of the SABS does not bar retroactive ACB claims, as it governs the timing of payment rather than entitlement.

The insurer's appeal against the special award was dismissed, as evidence supported the finding that IRBs were unreasonably withheld.

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

The insurer denied income replacement benefits and housekeeping expenses on the basis that the applicant was driving with a suspended licence at the time of the accident, triggering the exclusion under section 30(1)(b) of the Schedule.

The applicant argued he was unaware of the suspension and raised a due diligence defence, claiming he had given his stepson money to pay his traffic fines.

The arbitrator found the applicant failed to establish due diligence, as he took no steps to verify the fines were paid or to appeal his subsequent conviction.

The arbitrator also determined she lacked jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture under the Insurance Act or the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant was precluded from proceeding to arbitration for the disputed benefits.

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

The insurer denied claims for attendant care, caregiver, and housekeeping benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries were minor and her presentation was not credible.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered significant psycho-emotional injuries, including chronic pain syndrome and post-traumatic stress disorder, resulting in a catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator awarded attendant care benefits at the maximum rate of $6,000 per month, caregiver benefits for her younger son, and housekeeping benefits.

A claim for home modifications was denied as the renovations were planned prior to the accident.

The arbitrator also ordered a 10% special award against the insurer for unreasonably withholding payments without adequately assessing the medical evidence.

The employer sought judicial review of a labour arbitrator's decision finding that it failed to properly accommodate a paramedic who suffered a workplace injury.

The arbitrator held that under the collective agreement and the Human Rights Code, the employer was required to accommodate the paramedic by allowing him to 'ride third' in an ambulance once his medical restrictions permitted it, and that the employer failed to establish undue hardship.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective agreement and application of human rights principles to be reasonable.

The respondents requested to defer or stay the human rights application, arguing that the applicant had commenced a duplicative civil action in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Tribunal found that the civil action, which sought damages for physical injuries from falling, did not raise human rights allegations or seek remedies for Code violations.

The request to defer or stay the application was dismissed.

The respondents requested an order for the production of the applicant's psychiatric records, arguing they were relevant to his claims of mental anguish resulting from alleged discrimination.

The applicant opposed the request.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to produce arguably relevant medical records from his psychiatrist from one year prior to the alleged incident to the present, finding them relevant to both liability and remedy.

The Tribunal also declined to bifurcate the hearing between liability and remedy.

The applicant, a registered nurse, was struck by a school bus and claimed catastrophic impairment due to physical, cognitive, and psychological injuries.

The insurer disputed the catastrophic designation and denied ongoing attendant care and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator found the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under both the marked mental/behavioural impairment threshold and the 55% whole person impairment threshold, preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts who properly accounted for her severe depression and chronic pain.

The arbitrator awarded ongoing attendant care, housekeeping benefits, the cost of a cellphone, and a special award due to the insurer's unreasonable delay in reinstating income replacement benefits.

The plaintiff's action arising from a motor vehicle accident was administratively dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14.

The status notice and dismissal order were sent to the plaintiff's former counsel due to a court error, despite a notice of change of solicitor having been filed.

The motion judge dismissed the plaintiff's motion to set aside the dismissal, finding unexplained delay, prejudice to the defendants, and relying on the principle of finality.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge made palpable and overriding errors in her assessment of the delay, prejudice, and finality, particularly given the defendants' continued participation in discoveries for a related action.