Dr. Mount

The plaintiff brought a civil action for slander, malicious prosecution, and intentional infliction of mental suffering arising from his arrest at a cheque‑cashing store after attempting to cash a cheque that store staff believed to be fraudulent.

The court found that although defamatory words were communicated to police and employees, the statements were protected by qualified privilege and there was no proof of malice.

The malicious prosecution claim failed because the defendant did not initiate the prosecution and reasonable and probable grounds existed for the police investigation and charges.

The claim for intentional infliction of mental suffering also failed because the defendant’s conduct was not flagrant or outrageous and causation of the plaintiff’s psychiatric condition was not established.

In addition, the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiff did not prove incapacity to suspend the limitation period.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) from the insurer.

After two years, the insurer transitioned the applicant to loss of earning capacity benefits (LECBs).

The insurer later attempted to argue that the applicant's disability was unrelated to the accident.

The arbitrator held that the insurer was precluded from raising a causation defence because it had paid IRBs to the 104-week mark without protest and had already begun paying LECBs.

The arbitrator determined the applicant's residual earning capacity at various stages, awarding LECBs based on a 30-hour work week initially, and a 20-hour work week after the three-year review.

The arbitrator also awarded supplementary medical expenses and a $3,000 special award for the insurer's unreasonable refusal to fund psychological counselling.