George Russell Wray

The defendants, an insurance company and a public adjuster, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action concerning a fire insurance claim.

The plaintiffs alleged the settlement and release were unfair due to an imbalance of bargaining power and the defendants' negligence/bad faith.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding the validity and clarity of the release, the professional negligence claims against the adjuster, and whether expert evidence on the standard of care was required given the alleged egregious conduct.

The court emphasized caution against granting partial summary judgment due to risks of delay, expense, and inconsistent findings.

The plaintiff was injured after slipping on ice on a municipal sidewalk after exiting a bus.

She sued the City of Toronto and the TTC, and later added the City's winter maintenance contractor, Pave-Tar.

Pave-Tar and the TTC brought motions for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them.

Pave-Tar argued the claim against it was statute-barred, while the TTC argued it owed no duty of care.

The court dismissed both motions, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the limitation period and concluding that partial summary judgment was inappropriate due to the intertwined facts and risk of inconsistent findings at trial.

Following the dismissal of the insurer's appeal regarding a catastrophic impairment determination, the insured sought her legal appeal expenses in the amount of $23,052.00.

The insurer submitted that $3,699.44 was reasonable.

The Director's Delegate found the issues were of average complexity and the appeal was conducted in one morning.

Based on reasonableness and average awards in similar cases, the Delegate ordered the insurer to pay $3,750.00 for appeal legal expenses, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a motion decision that dismissed their request to remove the respondent's counsel of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.

The applicant argued that the respondent's law firm previously represented a defendant in a related tort claim.

The Tribunal found no error in fact or law in the original decision, noting that the tort matter was dismissed years prior, the lawyer involved had left the firm, and there was no evidence that confidential information was shared.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding the respondent catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the arbitrator erred in law by allowing the respondent to file expert reports after the hearing commenced and by misapplying the AMA Guides in assessing whole person impairment and mental/behavioral disorders.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the arbitrator's procedural rulings under Rule 39 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, as the insurer had first filed late reports.

The Delegate also upheld the arbitrator's substantive findings, concluding they were based on reasonable assessments of expert credibility and evidence.

Following an arbitration where the applicant was successfully designated as catastrophically impaired, the parties could not agree on expenses.

The arbitrator assessed the applicant's bill of costs globally, applying the Legal Aid Ontario tariff maximum of $150 per hour for counsel due to the complexity of the catastrophic impairment issue.

The arbitrator allowed the claimed hours in full but reduced certain disbursements that lacked supporting documentation or exceeded the maximums allowed under the Expense Regulation.

The insurer was ordered to pay $39,972.51 in expenses.

The applicant was injured in a severe motor vehicle accident that resulted in the death of her brother and severe injuries to her mother.

She applied for catastrophic impairment designation based on physical and psychological impairments, including chronic pain, PTSD, and depression.

The arbitrator found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment, meeting both the 55% whole person impairment threshold and the Class 4 marked impairment threshold for mental and behavioural disorders.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's psychological assessment, finding it ignored relevant medical history and evidence of significant functional limitations.

Claims for attendant care and housekeeping benefits were dismissed because the expenses were not 'incurred' as required by the Schedule, as no invoices were submitted and family members did not establish economic loss.

The applicant was awarded $1,440 for travel expenses and interest on overdue benefits, but the claim for a special award was dismissed.

The Applicant was catastrophically injured in a 2008 motor vehicle accident and received Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs).

In 2014, the Respondent acknowledged a miscalculation in the initial IRB rate and paid the differential of $15,003.56, but refused to pay interest.

The Applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for interest, a special award, and costs.

The Tribunal found that the Respondent had sufficient information in 2008 to correctly calculate the IRBs, meaning the differential was overdue and interest was payable under section 46 of the Schedule.

However, the Tribunal declined to order a special award or costs, finding the Respondent's actions were not unreasonable or in bad faith.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on a patch of ice in Nathan Phillips Square, suffering a fractured leg.

He sued the City of Toronto for damages under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court found that the City breached its duty of care by failing to identify and remove the unsafe ice patch in a high-traffic area.

However, the court also found the plaintiff 50% contributorily negligent for failing to keep a proper lookout.

General damages were assessed at $45,000, subject to the 50% reduction.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine the quantum of his income replacement benefits, which depended on whether he was employed or self-employed at the time of the accident.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant's work for an employment agency had many indicia of employment, his tax status as a 'Code 11' placement worker allowed him to deduct business expenses.

Giving primary weight to how the employment was treated for tax purposes, the arbitrator concluded the applicant was self-employed and accepted the insurer's calculation of the benefit amount.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a tractor-trailer in Ohio, resulting in a collision that killed one person.

He was convicted of vehicular manslaughter and vehicular assault in the US.

He applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied housekeeping benefits based on the criminal conviction exclusion in s. 30 of the Schedule.

The arbitrator upheld this exclusion, finding it applies to convictions in any jurisdiction.

The arbitrator also dismissed the claims for caregiver and attendant care benefits, finding the applicant was not the primary caregiver before the accident and did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident activities, relying heavily on surveillance video showing him performing strenuous truck repairs.

However, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay for previously approved medical treatment and assessments, and granted a special award against the insurer for unreasonably withholding these payments.

The appellant insurer sought to preserve the evidence of three experts regarding the cause of an infant's injuries before an action was commenced.

A previous application was dismissed because Rule 36.01 did not allow for preservation of evidence prior to the commencement of a proceeding.

Following an amendment to Rule 36.01 that expanded the definition of a party, the insurer brought a new motion.

The motion judge dismissed it on the basis of res judicata.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the change in the law constituted special circumstances justifying an exception to res judicata.

The court ordered the examination of two experts who had examined the vehicle, but not the expert who only reviewed medical records.