Mr. Ross

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the termination of her income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's experts, noting that the applicant's expert reports were either uncorroborated by contemporaneous medical records or based on limited reviews.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to ongoing IRBs, as she did not demonstrate a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a machine operator, particularly given her subsequent employment at a fast-food restaurant involving similar physical demands.

The application was dismissed.

The offender, Mitchell O’Hanley, was convicted of dangerous driving and arson.

This decision outlines the sentencing, considering mitigating factors such as his youth, lack of prior record, employment, and efforts towards rehabilitation, against aggravating factors including the seriousness of arson, complete destruction of property, risk to neighbours and firefighters, and the dangerous driving incident.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for arson, imposing a 15-month imprisonment for arson and a $1,750 fine with a 30-day license suspension for dangerous driving, followed by 24 months probation.

In a 32-year marriage, the trial judge ordered equalization of net family property and spousal support.

The appellant challenged both awards.

The Court of Appeal upheld the equalization determination, finding the trial judge's use of similar multiples for two companies in the same business was reasonable and well-reasoned.

However, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in principle in determining spousal support by failing to consider the significant effect of the equalization payment on the respondent's compensatory and non-compensatory entitlement and by failing to impute investment income to the respondent based on the equalization payment.

The spousal support was varied from $28,978 per month to $21,000 per month based on an imputed income of $675,000 rather than the full $1,000,000.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action alleging that the respondents, former officers and directors of a renovation company, conspired to divest the company of its assets to prevent the appellants from realizing on a default judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants had only pleaded the tort of conspiracy and failed to prove that they suffered special damages as a result of the respondents' unlawful conduct.

The court also rejected arguments regarding reasonable apprehension of bias and entitlement to punitive damages.

The parties, equal shareholders in a land development company, reached a deadlock.

The trial judge ordered the company wound up and gave the appellant the first right to buy the respondent's shares at fair market value.

After the parties failed to agree on a price, the trial judge fixed the share value and ordered a descending auction if the rights of refusal were not exercised.

The Divisional Court set aside this order and directed a public auction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by abandoning the valuation mechanism without notice, and the Divisional Court erred by removing the appellant's right of first refusal.

The matter was remitted to the trial judge.