Dr. Kirwin

Following the settlement of a motor vehicle accident tort claim, the plaintiffs brought a motion for costs and an increase in the pre-judgment interest rate.

The court assessed the costs of the civil action, reducing the amount claimed to account for expenses incurred due to a trial adjournment requested by the plaintiffs.

The court also considered whether the tort defendant should contribute to the costs the plaintiffs incurred in parallel statutory accident benefits (SABs) proceedings, ultimately ordering a $20,000 contribution because the SABs settlements significantly reduced the defendant's tort exposure.

The plaintiffs' request to increase the pre-judgment interest rate to offset statutory deductible increases was dismissed.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming he was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a warehouse manager.

The respondent denied the benefit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries from the minor collision had resolved within a few months and that his ongoing pain was attributable to a pre-existing degenerative back condition rather than the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform his employment tasks and dismissed the application for the IRB, along with claims for an award and interest.

The applicant sought interim housekeeping and income replacement benefits pending arbitration of his claim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator applied the three-part test for interim mandatory orders, requiring the applicant to establish a strong prima facie case, irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting the relief.

The arbitrator found the applicant failed to establish it was more probable than not he would succeed at the hearing, failed to demonstrate irreparable harm given the availability of an earlier hearing date, and found the balance of convenience favoured the insurer.

The motion for interim benefits was dismissed.

The appellant was injured in a home invasion and awarded $7,000 by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, which rejected his claim of complete disability.

The appellant appealed, arguing the Board erred in law, failed to record the proceedings, and sought to introduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no statutory obligation to record the proceedings, rejecting the fresh evidence as mere argument, and concluding the Board's decision was supported by the medical evidence.