Scott P.W. Walters

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a reported hit-and-run rear-end collision.

The respondent insurer denied benefits and sought repayment of $13,947.45, alleging the applicant staged the collision or wilfully misrepresented the facts, relying on an engineering report suggesting the vehicle reversed into a pole.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's engineering experts, who found her account plausible based on real-world collision data.

The Tribunal also drew an adverse inference against the respondent for selling the vehicle before it could be inspected.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was involved in an accident, did not wilfully misrepresent material facts, and the respondent was not entitled to repayment.

The plaintiffs initiated an action against the City of Toronto, Toronto Port Lands Company, and Toronto Terminal Railway Company following a bicycle accident on a path crossing railway tracks.

The City and Toronto Port Lands Company moved for summary judgment to dismiss the main action, while the Toronto Terminal Railway Company moved for summary judgment to dismiss the City's crossclaim for contribution and indemnity.

The court found that conflicting expert opinions on causation and standard of care presented genuine issues requiring a trial.

Furthermore, the court determined that granting partial summary judgment on the crossclaim would risk inconsistent findings and injustice due to the intertwined nature of the issues.

Both motions for summary judgment were dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The respondent cyclist was injured when struck by a beer bottle thrown by the driver of a passing pickup truck.

The Arbitrator found the incident was an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, relying on an engineering report that the truck's speed contributed to the bottle's impact.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate revoked the decision, holding that the incident was an assault, not an accident.

The use or operation of the truck was not the direct cause of the impairment, but merely provided a platform and means of escape for the assailant.