Doug Wright

The appellant appealed an order enforcing a settlement agreement to discontinue his action against the respondent.

The appellant argued the offer to settle had expired and the release was not an agreed-upon part of the settlement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondent's counsel had expressly extended the time for acceptance, and the appellant's counsel accepted the offer with the draft release in hand.

The motion judge's discretion to enforce the settlement was upheld.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their medical malpractice action for being commenced outside the two-year limitation period.

The motion judge found that the appellant knew she had suffered an injury from an unconsented surgical procedure on September 3, 2004, and immediately sought legal advice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's conclusion that the limitation period began to run on that date and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiffs sued their insurer for terminating statutory accident benefits based on reports from health care professionals retained by the insurer under s. 42 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

On discovery, the plaintiffs sought to ask questions that amounted to cross-examining these experts.

The motion judge held that the experts were not 'experts' within the meaning of Rule 31.06(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and thus the prohibition against cross-examination did not apply.

The Divisional Court allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the clear wording of Rule 31.06(3) covers experts engaged by a party for a purpose other than litigation, including s. 42 assessors.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident, suffering severe fractures to his left thumb.

The insurer terminated his weekly income benefits after two years, relying on an independent medical examination that concluded he could return to work.

The arbitrator found that the applicant, a welder who performed heavy manual labour, suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment due to pain, weakness, and lack of sleep.

The arbitrator also found that the applicant was continuously prevented from engaging in any suitable occupation given his limited education, learning difficulties, and inability to cope with change.

The applicant was awarded ongoing weekly income benefits and interest, but his claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's decision to terminate benefits was based on conflicting medical reports and was not unreasonable.

The applicant, who sustained a severe brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, sought Education Disability Benefits (EDBs) for the period of July 12 to July 15, 1996, which marked 104 weeks post-accident.

The insurer had terminated EDBs just prior to this date.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to continue his specific pre-accident educational path, despite his efforts to attend university part-time with accommodations.

The arbitrator also found that the applicant suffered a partial inability to carry on a normal life.

Furthermore, the arbitrator ruled that under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, an insured only needs to demonstrate a partial inability to carry on a normal life at the exact 104-week mark to be entitled to a Loss of Earning Capacity (LEC) benefits offer, rejecting the insurer's argument that complete inability was required.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for 156 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits on the basis that the applicant no longer suffered from a disability.

The applicant applied for arbitration, seeking ongoing weekly income benefits and a special award.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain in her neck and shoulders that prevented her from returning to her pre-accident employment as a stamp examiner or any other suitable factory work.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay ongoing weekly income benefits and interest, but declined to order a special award, finding that the insurer's decision to terminate benefits to test the applicant's subjective complaints of pain was not unreasonable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated her income replacement and housekeeping benefits.

The applicant applied for arbitration, claiming ongoing entitlement to income replacement benefits, loss of earning capacity benefits, physiotherapy, and housekeeping expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment due to chronic pain, despite a lack of objective musculoskeletal findings, and ordered the insurer to pay income replacement benefits and make an offer for loss of earning capacity benefits.

The claims for physiotherapy and housekeeping expenses were dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, including weekly income replacement benefits.

The insurer refused to pay, and the applicant brought a motion for an interim order for payment of $185 per week pending arbitration.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that while the medical evidence established a substantial inability to perform pre-accident work, there was evidence the applicant had returned to modified work and received post-accident income.

The applicant failed to provide sufficient financial information to establish a prima facie case for entitlement to the minimum benefit after accounting for potential deductions.