Dr. Franks

The Respondent Father brought a motion seeking a declaration that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction over the custody of the child and requesting the recognition and enforcement of a Qatari custody order.

The Applicant Mother opposed the motion.

The court determined that while the child's habitual residence was Qatar due to the Mother's abduction, Ontario nevertheless had jurisdiction under section 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act, as all six statutory criteria were met, including the child's substantial connection to Ontario and the balance of convenience.

The court declined to recognize and enforce the Qatari order, citing the Father's apparent forum shopping, conflicting foreign orders, and his failure to prove that Qatari law considered the child's best interests.

The Father's motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and non-earner benefits (NEBs) following two motor vehicle accidents.

The insurer denied the benefits and sought repayment of $42,402.58 in IRBs previously paid, alleging material misrepresentation regarding the applicant's employment and income.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claims, finding that his pain complaints were long-standing and pre-existing, and he failed to prove a substantial inability to perform his employment tasks or a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The arbitrator also dismissed the insurer's claim for repayment, concluding there was insufficient evidence to prove the applicant wilfully misrepresented his employment or committed fraud.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits for three years.

The insurer terminated weekly income benefits, child care supplement, and housekeeping expenses at the 156-week mark.

The applicant sought arbitration, claiming she was continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of her normal activities due to chronic pain and cognitive difficulties.

The arbitrator reviewed extensive video surveillance evidence showing the applicant engaging in various physical activities, including driving, shopping, bending, lifting, and dancing.

The arbitrator concluded that while the applicant experienced pain, she was not continuously prevented from performing her normal housekeeping, child care, and recreational activities.

The claims for weekly benefits, child care supplement, and housekeeping expenses were dismissed, but $164 for babysitting expenses during pain flare-ups was awarded.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for three years.

The insurer terminated benefits on the basis that the applicant did not meet the stricter test of being continuously prevented from engaging in any suitable occupation after 156 weeks.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, as extensive video surveillance contradicted his claims of severe physical and cognitive disability, showing him engaging in vigorous activities and working as a waiter.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for ongoing benefits, ordered repayment of an overpayment due to CPP benefits, and awarded the applicant only 50% of his arbitration expenses.