Mr. Wong

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological services, and chiropractic services.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the physiotherapy and psychological services were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors over the applicant's medical records.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the incurred expenses for the chiropractic treatment plan because the respondent's denial letter failed to provide specific medical reasons, violating the notice requirements under section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The claim for a section 10 award was dismissed as the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable.

Varcon Construction Corporation appealed a partial summary judgment granted to 2099082 Ontario Limited (AWD Contractors) concerning a construction subcontract dispute.

Varcon's appeal challenged findings that AWD's work was not deficient and that AWD did not fail to rectify deficiencies.

AWD cross-appealed the motion judge's decision to order a trial on the subcontract's warranty provisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Varcon's appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's factual findings.

The Court allowed AWD's cross-appeal, determining there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the warranty, as a plain reading of the contract did not support Varcon's interpretation that AWD was a general guarantor for all project defects.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied further benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered a fractured sternum and psychological impairments, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal awarded income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and certain medical/assessment costs.

Furthermore, the Tribunal granted a special award of 40% of the outstanding attendant care benefits, finding the respondent unreasonably withheld payment by intentionally misrepresenting its assessors' findings to keep the applicant within the MIG.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal which dismissed their claims against Tarion Warranty Corporation for alleged defects in their new home, including foundation issues, basement moisture, and squeaky floors.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review to the Tribunal's findings of fact.

The Court found that the Tribunal reasonably concluded, based on the evidence of civil engineers and construction managers, that the home was built in accordance with the design and not too close to the water table.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The Crown appealed decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board awarding compensation for injurious affection to two groups of landowners following the expropriation of land for Highway 407.

The Crown argued the lands' value was already limited by the Parkway Belt West Plan and had no urban development potential.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Board's findings that, but for the physical construction of the highway, the lands would likely have been released from the Plan and developed.

The loss of this opportunity was directly caused by the highway's construction, constituting compensable injurious affection.