Fawad Ahmad Siddiqui

Following a decision that the arbitrator had no jurisdiction to order a special award regarding the handling of the applicant's claim for attendant care benefits, the insurer sought its expenses for the arbitration proceeding.

The arbitrator found that the insurer was the successful party and awarded expenses.

However, noting the lack of complexity and the consumer-oriented nature of the legislation, the arbitrator reduced the claimed hours and awarded the insurer 50% of its claimed expenses, fixing the amount at $5,580.14.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits from the insurer.

The applicant later entered into a full and final settlement of the accident benefits claim with a priority insurer, which allocated no monies towards attendant care benefits.

The applicant then sought a special award against the original insurer for unreasonably withholding or delaying payments.

The arbitrator held that there is no jurisdiction to order a special award where the underlying claim for benefits has been resolved on a full and final basis without any finding or recognition of entitlement to benefits.

The application for arbitration was dismissed.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's action was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as it was commenced after the two-year limitation period.

The core issue was the discoverability date of the plaintiff's injuries, specifically when she knew or ought to have known her injuries constituted "permanent serious impairment" under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff's chronic pain and psychological conditions were diagnosed by May 9, 2008, at which point she ought to have known she had a cause of action.

As the action was commenced on September 27, 2010, it was beyond the two-year limitation period.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action dismissed.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a motion judge's order requiring her to pay the costs charged by third-party record holders to produce relevant documents.

The court granted the extension of time, finding no prejudice to the defendant and that the justice of the case warranted it.

The court also granted leave to appeal, noting conflicting lines of authority on whether a plaintiff or a defendant seeking production must pay for third-party records, and concluded that an appellate decision was desirable to clarify the law.

The plaintiff subcontractor, S&K Construction, registered a construction lien against the owner, NAMF, and the general contractor, Hussain, for unpaid work on a gym renovation project.

The central dispute involved the installation of a defective epoxy gym floor.

The court found that both the general contractor and the subcontractor breached their respective contracts by failing to deliver a floor that was smooth enough for gym use.

As a result, the subcontractor's lien claim for the floor work was dismissed.

The owner's claim for the full cost of a replacement pulastic floor was denied due to betterment, but the owner was awarded the cost of removing the defective epoxy.

The subcontractor was awarded a reduced lien amount for authorized non-floor work, and the general contractor was awarded payment for an HVAC unit.

Following a successful discovery motion compelling the plaintiff to answer outstanding undertakings and pay the costs of obtaining relevant documents, the court addressed disputes regarding the form of the resulting order and the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff argued that certain undertakings, including production of a recent income tax return, should not be included in the order, but the court rejected that position and confirmed the order should reflect the undertakings as set out in the motion materials.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of the motion, while the plaintiff argued the motion was straightforward and that the time claimed by defence counsel was excessive.

Applying Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considering reasonable expectations of the losing party, the court awarded partial indemnity costs in a reduced amount.

Costs were fixed at $4,800 payable by the plaintiff within 30 days.