Dr. Salmon

A wife brought an urgent motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, permission to remove her special needs horses and donkey, partition and sale of the home, and return of her laptops, following separation and criminal charges preventing her from accessing the home.

The husband cross-moved for exclusive possession.

The court granted the husband temporary exclusive possession until January 31, 2024, after which the wife would have exclusive possession until the property's sale.

The court ordered the husband to facilitate proper care for the animals by contacting their regular veterinarian and ensuring training for caregivers.

The husband was also ordered to return the wife's laptops and pay costs for breaching a prior consent order.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle collision where the vehicle he was a passenger in struck a tree.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the collision was a staged accident and the applicant willfully misrepresented material facts.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found copious inconsistencies between the accounts of the applicant, the driver, and the other passenger regarding the events leading up to the incident and the collision itself.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the incident was an 'accident' under the Schedule.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant's inconsistent descriptions were made with the intent to mislead the insurer, constituting willful misrepresentation.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate, which allowed the insured's appeal from an arbitrator's denial of statutory accident benefits.

The Director's Delegate found that the arbitrator erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for denying income replacement and medical benefits.

Applying the Vavilov framework, the Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court concluded that the Director's Delegate reasonably found the arbitrator's reasons inadequate, as they failed to address the principal evidence or explain the reasoning process.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision dismissing her claims for post-104 week income replacement benefits and a medical benefit for a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The Director's Delegate found that the Arbitrator failed to provide adequate reasons for his decision, which constituted a breach of natural justice and procedural fairness.

The Arbitrator ignored, failed to summarize, analyze, or consider important evidence that was not supportive of the insurer's position, and misinterpreted other evidence.

The appeal was allowed, the decision rescinded, and the matter returned to arbitration for a fresh hearing before a different arbitrator.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The parties agreed on a 34% physical whole person impairment but disputed the mental and behavioural impairment rating.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the Applicant's psychological expert, finding that the Applicant suffered a marked impairment in adaptation to work environments due to severe panic disorder and agoraphobia.

The arbitrator concluded that the Applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under both clause 2(1.2)(g) (marked mental impairment) and clause 2(1.2)(f) (combined physical and mental impairment of 60%).

The applicant was injured in a head-on motor vehicle collision and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued he met the criteria under s. 2(1.2)(g) for marked mental or behavioural impairment and s. 2(1.2)(f) for 55% Whole Person Impairment.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had significant pre-existing substance abuse and psychological issues, and that his current impairments were moderate rather than marked.

The arbitrator also preferred the insurer's medical experts, finding the applicant's experts relied on flawed methodology and incomplete medical histories.

The application for catastrophic impairment was dismissed, limiting the applicant's entitlement to housekeeping and attendant care benefits to the 104-week post-accident period.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and suffered a brain impairment.

His initial Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) was 3 out of 15, but improved to 14 out of 15 shortly after arriving at the hospital.

The trial judge ruled that the appellant did not suffer a catastrophic impairment because his GCS scores improved.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the statutory definition of catastrophic impairment under O. Reg. 461/96 only requires a single GCS score of 9 or less within a reasonable time following the accident, provided there is a brain impairment.

The fact that subsequent scores were higher is irrelevant.

The applicant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed a severe addiction to crack cocaine.

He applied for catastrophic impairment status, attendant care benefits, and income replacement benefits.

The insurer argued the addiction pre-dated the accident and was not causally linked.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was a recreational user prior to the accident but the severe addiction was a direct result of the accident, likely due to a mild traumatic brain injury and an attempt to self-medicate.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant suffered a Class 4 marked impairment under the AMA Guides, meeting the definition of catastrophic impairment.

The applicant was awarded ongoing attendant care benefits of $5,056.80 per month and income replacement benefits of $256 per week.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed ongoing income replacement benefits.

The Insurer argued his condition was not caused by the accident and he was not motivated to return to work.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant suffered continuous depression, reduced cognitive skills, and chronic pain as a result of the accident.

Due to these cognitive and physical disabilities, the Applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his job as a welder.

The Arbitrator ordered the Insurer to pay ongoing income replacement benefits and the expenses of the arbitration.