Fergal Murphy

The Applicant sought accident benefits for physiotherapy and massage therapy following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The Insurer denied the claims on the basis that the Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the treatment plans were unsigned.

The Arbitrator dismissed the Applicant's claims, finding that the Applicant failed to sign the OCF-18 treatment plans as required by section 38(3) of the SABS.

Furthermore, the Arbitrator accepted the Insurer's expert medical evidence that the Applicant's soft tissue injuries were treatable within the MIG and that the Applicant did not suffer from chronic pain.

The Insurer was awarded its expenses for the arbitration.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought caregiver and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Respondent denied caregiver benefits, arguing the Applicant did not reside with his parents and failed to provide proof of incurred expenses.

The Respondent also denied a rehabilitation benefit for an electric assist motor bicycle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant 'resided with' his parents based on a broad interpretation of the term, considering his intention and continuity of care, despite living 900 metres away.

The Tribunal also accepted cash payments to a former nanny as adequate proof of incurred expenses.

Finally, the Tribunal found the electric assist bicycle was a reasonable and necessary rehabilitation expense to help the Applicant return to his pre-accident cardiovascular activities while minimizing impact on his injuries.

The Applicant was awarded the claimed benefits and interest.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitration decision regarding a priority dispute over statutory accident benefits for a claimant injured on an all-terrain vehicle (ATV).

The arbitrator found that the respondent's policy, which specifically insured the ATV, met the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

However, the arbitrator erred by concluding that the appellant's general automobile policy, which did not cover the ATV, was still subject to the priority scheme in s. 268(2) of the Insurance Act.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the threshold for statutory accident benefits must be met under each specific policy before the priority scheme is engaged.

Since only the respondent's policy provided coverage, the priority scheme did not apply, and the appeal was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including medical benefits and assessment costs.

The applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing, and the arbitrator proceeded in his absence pursuant to section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the applicant presented no evidence, he failed to meet his burden of proof.

All claims for benefits were dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $1,000 in expenses to the insurer.

The applicants, twin brothers who were 11 years old at the time, claimed non-earner benefits (NEBs) alleging they suffered psychological or mental injuries as a result of their mother's physical injuries in a 2004 motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator found that while the applicants' lives changed after the accident, primarily due to their mother's condition and their parents' subsequent separation, they failed to prove they sustained a psychological or mental injury within 104 weeks of the accident.

Furthermore, their post-accident school performance and overall function were consistent with their pre-accident demonstrated potential.

The applications for NEBs were dismissed.

The applicant, a self-represented litigant, moved to set aside an order of a single judge of the Court of Appeal that dismissed her motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal a Divisional Court decision.

The underlying action involved a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant also sought to compel the production of an article used by an expert at trial and to set aside the Divisional Court's costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding no error in the single judge's discretionary ruling that the proposed appeal raised issues of significance only to the parties.

The court also held that the production request should have been made at trial and found no reversible error in the costs award.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Small Claims Court interlocutory order that permitted the respondent to be represented by a paralegal.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, noting that it is reluctant to interfere with Small Claims Court interlocutory orders on judicial review unless there is a lack of jurisdiction or a breach of natural justice.

The court found no such breach and emphasized that the purpose of the Small Claims Court is to provide expeditious and low-cost resolution of disputes, which precludes appeals from interlocutory orders.