2 total
Appeal partially allowed; dismissal of action against two defendants upheld, but reversed against remaining defendants due to lack of procedural notice.
The appellants, whose children were previously made Crown wards, commenced a civil action against various individuals and organizations involved in the child protection proceedings.
Two defendants requested the dismissal of the action under Rule 2.1.01 as frivolous and vexatious.
The motion judge dismissed the action against those two defendants, and subsequently amended her reasons to dismiss the action against all defendants without giving the appellants notice.
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal against the two moving defendants, finding the action was an abuse of process attempting to relitigate the child protection proceedings.
However, the Court allowed the appeal regarding the other defendants, holding that the motion judge committed a procedural error by dismissing the action against them without providing notice and an opportunity to make submissions as required by Rule 2.1.01.
Application for physiotherapy and massage therapy benefits dismissed as applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.
The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a treatment plan proposing physiotherapy and massage therapy.
The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan based on an insurer's examination.
The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement, the treatment goals were unattainable, and previous treatment had not resulted in pain reduction.
The application for benefits, interest, and costs was dismissed.
