Harlan A. Pottins

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

The insurer scheduled multiple insurer examinations to assess entitlement to attendant care benefits, non-earner benefits, and treatment plans.

The applicant failed to attend the examinations.

The insurer argued the applicant was barred from proceeding under section 55(1)2 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the insurer's notices of examination complied with section 44(5) of the Schedule and the applicant provided no reasonable explanation for her non-attendance.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several benefits and requested the applicant attend insurer's examinations under section 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled examinations without providing a reasonable explanation.

The Tribunal found that the notices of examination complied with the Schedule's requirements.

Consequently, the applicant was barred under section 55 from proceeding with her claims for the income replacement benefit and two treatment plans, but was permitted to proceed with a third treatment plan for which no examination had been scheduled.

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

The insurer denied the disputed medical benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG due to a pre-existing spine condition and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his pre-existing condition prevented his recovery under the MIG or that he suffered from accident-related chronic pain resulting in functional impairment.

As the MIG limit had not been exhausted, the applicant was entitled to seek treatment up to the limit, with interest payable on any outstanding payments for approved treatment.

This motion sought judicial approval of a settlement for a minor plaintiff who suffered injuries at a marina.

While the $85,000 settlement was deemed reasonable given the plaintiff's full recovery, the court found the proposed 35% contingency fee of the plaintiff's counsel to be excessive and unenforceable.

The court reduced the legal fees to 20% of the net recovery, increasing the amount paid to the minor plaintiff.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a nanny and hotel housekeeper within the first 104 weeks post-accident due to physical injuries, awarding IRBs for that period.

However, the Tribunal denied IRBs beyond the 104-week mark, finding the applicant failed to prove she was completely unable to engage in any reasonably suitable employment, noting she had returned to work in a lighter capacity and giving little weight to her expert reports due to the lack of an interpreter during assessments.

The plaintiff brought a motion to add Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited as a defendant to a slip and fall action after the expiry of the presumptive two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff fell on an uneven grate but was not informed by the City of Toronto that Hydro owned the grate until three years after the incident.

The court applied the discoverability principle and found the plaintiff provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, as there was no basis to investigate other defendants until the City clarified ownership.

The motion to add Hydro as a defendant was granted.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a registrar's dismissal of her personal injury action for abandonment under Rule 48.

The action arose from a 2009 rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff had difficulty serving the defendant driver, who had moved frequently and had her license suspended for failing to pay fines related to the accident.

The court found the plaintiff had an acceptable explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice if the action proceeded.

The motion was granted and the action was restored to active status.