Erica Lewin

A hired dog walker sustained significant injuries when the respondents' dog attacked her while she was attempting to put booties on the animal in the respondents' home.

The appellant brought an action under the Dog Owners' Liability Act claiming the respondents, as dog owners, were strictly liable.

The respondents successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the appellant herself qualified as an "owner" under the Act and could not recover from fellow owners.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, applying the definition of "possesses" from Wilk v. Arbour and confirming that a person in physical possession and control of a dog just before an attack is an "owner" regardless of whether she was acting under the instructions of the registrant owners, and regardless of whether the attack occurred in another owner's home.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing despite receiving proper notice.

The Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to section 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the applicant tendered no evidence or submissions, she failed to meet her onus to prove entitlement to the claimed benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The dispute centered on two conflicting disability certificates (OCF-3s) submitted by the same physiotherapist.

The first OCF-3 endorsed a complete inability to carry on a normal life but not a substantial inability to perform essential employment tasks.

After the insurer contacted the clinic for clarification, an amended OCF-3 was submitted stating the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant argued the insurer improperly contacted the provider and that the denial notice was non-compliant.

The Tribunal found the insurer's inquiry was reasonably required under s. 46.2(1) of the Schedule to determine eligibility.

The applicant failed to provide medical evidence establishing a complete inability to carry on a normal life or a copy of the denial notice to prove non-compliance.

The application for the non-earner benefit, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claim for damages arising from a dog bite, holding that the plaintiff, a dog walker, was an “owner” under the Dog Owners’ Liability Act (DOLA) at the time of the incident.

The court found that the plaintiff was in physical possession and control of the dog immediately before the bite, and thus was jointly and severally liable under the DOLA, precluding her from recovering damages from the other owners.

The decision applies the Ontario Court of Appeal’s interpretation of “owner” in Wilk v. Arbour and clarifies that dominion or independent control is not required for liability under the DOLA.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8 of the Schedule, concluding he suffered marked impairments in social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation due to a mental and behavioural disorder.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychiatrist over the respondent's assessor, who failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal approved the majority of the disputed treatment plans, including occupational therapy, chiropractic services, physiotherapy, and a catastrophic assessment, but denied a pharmacotherapy plan for medical cannabis as the requested amount exceeded the applicant's stated needs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended he suffered from chronic pain, psychological impairments, and a concussion, which would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claims of chronic pain, psychological impairment, or concussion.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

The application for disputed treatment plans, an award, and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of pre-existing conditions or psychological injuries that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's medical examinations, which concluded the injuries were minor soft tissue strains.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed minor and the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the claims for additional physiotherapy and orthopaedic assessments were dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal order dismissing her application for auto insurance dispute resolution as abandoned after she and her counsel failed to attend two consecutive case conferences.

The applicant argued that a case management officer's email created a legitimate expectation that a new case conference would be scheduled, and that the Tribunal erred in law by not personally serving her with notice under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the email lacked the certainty required to create a legitimate expectation, especially given a prior clear order warning of dismissal.

The Tribunal also held that service on counsel constituted reasonable notice under the SPPA, and that counsel's administrative error in diarizing the date did not warrant reconsideration.

The Applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal order dismissing her application for failing to attend a case conference.

The Applicant argued that a case management officer's email created a legitimate expectation of a rescheduled hearing, that the Tribunal erred in law by not personally serving her under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and that the Tribunal made a factual error regarding her attendance at a previous conference.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no breach of procedural fairness, as the officer's statement lacked certainty and the Applicant had clear notice of the consequences of non-attendance.

The Tribunal also held that service on counsel constituted reasonable notice under the SPPA and that the factual error was not significant enough to alter the outcome.

The respondent insurer brought a preliminary issue motion arguing that the applicant was barred from claiming a physiatry assessment because the expense would be incurred more than 260 weeks after the motor vehicle accident, pursuant to s. 20 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant had appealed the denial within the two-year limitation period under s. 56.

The Tribunal held that interpreting s. 20 as an absolute bar would lead to absurd consequences, effectively reducing the appeal period by the time required to process a claim.

The matter was ordered to proceed to a hearing on the substantive issues.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision refusing to extend the limitation period for her claim for non-earner benefits.

The LAT Act limits appeals to questions of law, but the applicant sought judicial review on issues of mixed fact and law regarding her mental capacity.

Applying the framework from Yatar, the Divisional Court declined to hear the application, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review where the legislature intended to limit recourse to the courts.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied certain benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries fell outside the MIG due to the development of chronic pain.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding the applicant was not substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her employment as a retail sales associate.

The Tribunal approved a $3,456 physiotherapy treatment plan as reasonable and necessary, but denied the applicant's request for a special award under Regulation 664, finding the insurer did not act unreasonably.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit, arguing that a pre-existing clavicle fracture was exacerbated, leading to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of functional impairment or disability resulting from chronic pain, noting that he continued to work and travel, and did not meet the criteria under the AMA Guides.

The adjudicator concluded that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

As the MIG limit had been exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied and the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied claims for psychological and physical treatment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from accident-related psychological impairments, including major depressive disorder and PTSD, which removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychologists over the respondent's assessor, noting the respondent's assessor's conclusions contradicted his own test results.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed psychological assessments and chiropractic services, along with interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were limited to soft tissue strains and that she failed to prove any psychological impairment or pre-existing condition that would remove her from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG funding limit had already been exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that barred him from proceeding with his application for statutory accident benefits due to his failure to attend a section 44 insurer's examination.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred by permanently precluding him from disputing whether his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that the Tribunal erred in refusing to clarify the decision.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the original decision properly applied section 55(2) of the Schedule and that the issue of future applications or MIG status was not before the original adjudicator.

The request to reconsider the refusal to clarify was also dismissed as there was no ambiguity in the original decision.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied.

The plaintiff, injured while a passenger on a bus, brought a motion to strike the jury notice due to COVID-19 delays and to permit witnesses to testify virtually.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to amend their Statement of Defence to allege contributory negligence and failure to mitigate.

The court granted the defendants' motion to amend, finding the proposed amendments legally tenable.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to strike the jury notice at this time, noting the availability of jury trial facilities in Toronto and the substantive right to a jury, but adjourned the trial.

The court granted the request to allow witnesses to testify by video conference, subject to notice requirements.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, claiming physical injuries, chronic pain, and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the physical injuries were minor, there was insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition precluding recovery, and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate his impairments warranted removal from the MIG, and dismissed the claims for treatment plans and interest as the MIG limits were exhausted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim and raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding under s. 55(1)2 of the Schedule for failing to attend an independent medical examination (IE).

The applicant also brought a motion to file a sur-reply.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion for a sur-reply, finding no exceptional circumstances.

On the preliminary issue, the Tribunal found that the respondent complied with the notice requirements for the IE and that the IE was reasonably necessary.

Because the applicant failed to attend, he was barred from proceeding with his application.

The Tribunal declined to grant relief under s. 55(2) due to prejudice to the respondent, and denied costs to both parties.

The applicant sought dispute resolution after the respondent insurer denied treatment plans for psychological, chiropractic, and massage services following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's ongoing pain complaints, supported by medical evidence, established a chronic pain condition that removed him from the MIG.

However, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant failed to prove the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as there was insufficient objective medical evidence supporting the need for psychological or chiropractic intervention.

The claims for the treatment plans, a special award, and interest were dismissed.