Alexander Cazin

The appellants were convicted of driving an unsafe commercial vehicle after a roadside inspection revealed defective brakes.

On appeal to the Ontario Court of Justice, they sought to introduce fresh expert evidence regarding the brake measurements, which was rejected based on the Palmer test for fresh evidence.

The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the strict due diligence requirement of Palmer should not apply to Provincial Offences Act (POA) appeals.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the Palmer principles, including due diligence, govern the exercise of discretion to receive fresh evidence under s. 117(1) of the POA.

The applicants claimed statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the collision did not occur as described.

At arbitration, the insurer presented expert evidence from an accident reconstruction engineer who concluded the damage to the vehicles was inconsistent with the reported accident.

The arbitrator found the applicants lacked credibility due to numerous unexplained discrepancies in their evidence and accepted the expert's conclusion that the accident did not occur.

The application for benefits was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the insurer's expenses.

The applicant claimed she was injured in a minor motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits and housekeeping expenses from her insurer.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the collision was too minor to cause the alleged injuries and questioning the applicant's credibility.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence unreliable, noting numerous inconsistencies and implausible explanations regarding the accident and her injuries.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform her employment tasks or housekeeping duties as a result of the accident.

All claims for benefits and a special award were dismissed.