Fraser Chorley

This motion addressed three discovery-related issues: production of information concerning other employees of the defendant V&N GTA Landscaping Inc. (GTA), production of GTA's policy of insurance, and setting aside a certificate of non-attendance obtained against the plaintiff.

The first two issues were resolved by agreement between the parties.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to set aside the certificate of non-attendance, finding no prejudice to the plaintiff in attending discovery without prior surveillance information and that the agreed-upon discovery schedule did not entitle the plaintiff to complete all undertakings and refusals before her own examination.

The plaintiff, Lesley Ann Smith, brought a motion seeking an order validating service of the statement of claim on the defendant, Renee Elfassy, and extending the time to serve the claim.

The underlying action arose from an alleged trip and fall in 2016.

The statement of claim was issued in 2018, but Ms. Elfassy was not served until 2022.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to make reasonable efforts to locate and serve Ms. Elfassy within the prescribed period or in the subsequent years.

The court also found that the delay was not adequately explained and that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumed and actual prejudice to Ms. Elfassy caused by the delay.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) of $400 per week from February 2018 onwards, along with interest and an award for unreasonable withholding of benefits.

The respondent insurer had terminated the IRB based on insurer's examinations concluding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a construction labourer.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he met the pre-104 week disability test.

The application was dismissed, and no IRB, interest, or award was payable.

The applicant sought a determination that her injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and claimed entitlement to several treatment plans.

She argued that a pre-existing foot injury, concussion, psychological issues, chronic pain, and radiculopathy warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that her pre-existing condition prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain or establish that her other conditions took her outside the MIG.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, she was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and had a pre-existing condition that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain and failed to establish that a pre-existing condition documented prior to the accident would prevent her maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy on the basis that the applicant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, as he provided insufficient medical evidence of pre-existing conditions precluding recovery.

The Tribunal also found the treatment plan was not proven to be reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident while being transported in a police van.

The insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to comply with section 33 production requests for relevant medical records.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence or persuasive analysis to prove that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary for accident-related impairments.

The third party insurer brought a motion under Rule 31.10 for leave to examine the plaintiffs as non-parties in each other's related actions regarding their observations of the other occupants during a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs had previously refused these questions on the basis of relevance to their individual actions, and a prior motion to compel answers was dismissed with an invitation to bring the motion under Rule 31.10.

The court granted the motion, finding that the questions were relevant to damages and credibility, and that the plaintiffs' narrow approach to relevance frustrated the discovery process and the principle of proportionality.

The defendant, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer undertakings and questions refused during an examination for discovery.

The plaintiff claimed $700,000 in pecuniary damages.

The Master found that the plaintiff had not made best efforts to answer several undertakings, including providing OHIP summaries and motel receipts.

The Master also ordered the plaintiff to answer the refusals, finding them relevant to the economic loss claim and not offending the principle of proportionality.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 34.15 to compel the defendant to answer undertakings and refusals from an examination for discovery arising from a single-vehicle accident.

The court ordered the defendant to answer questions regarding pre-accident health based on an unconditional agreement between counsel.

However, the court dismissed the request to compel answers regarding the defendant's post-accident statements, finding that the questions were directed solely to credibility rather than obtaining facts, applying the Divisional Court's reasoning in Sangaralingam.