Ellen Naomi Gowland

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a 2002 dismissal order for non-appearance and to reinstate the action.

Several defendants requested an adjournment to retrieve their files, which the plaintiff opposed.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, noting that the plaintiff failed to serve all relevant defendants, did not include the dismissal order in the motion materials, and provided little evidence explaining the delay since a vexatious litigant order against him was rescinded in 2010.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2010 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment, attendant care, housekeeping, and non-earner benefits.

The insurer argued the applicant's impairments were solely due to pre-existing rheumatoid arthritis.

The arbitrator found the accident was a material contributing factor to the applicant's catastrophic impairment, relying on expert medical and psychological evidence.

However, the claims for attendant care and housekeeping benefits were dismissed because the applicant failed to provide documentary evidence that her service providers suffered an economic loss.

The claim for non-earner benefits was also dismissed due to insufficient evidence comparing pre- and post-accident activities.

The applicant was awarded $3,100 for the cost of examinations.

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

The insurer terminated benefits and later requested an Examination Under Oath (EUO), which the applicant refused to attend, arguing the request was outside the 10-day limit in section 36(4) of the Schedule.

On a preliminary issue hearing, the Arbitrator held that the insurer is entitled to an EUO, as the 10-day limit does not restrict the ongoing right to request one under section 33.

However, following appellate authority, the Arbitrator found she lacked jurisdiction to compel attendance or adjourn the hearing sine die.

The insurer's remedy for non-attendance is the suspension of benefits.

Following a jury trial arising from a pedestrian–motor vehicle collision and related assault, the plaintiff recovered modest damages totalling $3,720 plus prejudgment interest.

The court considered prejudgment interest under s. 128(3) of the Courts of Justice Act and awarded the amount claimed.

The primary issue concerned costs where the recovery fell within the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.

Applying Rules 57.01 and 57.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court declined to deny costs entirely but held that the modest recovery and settlement offers justified a significantly reduced award.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded at a substantially lower level than claimed.