Harry Brown

The Municipal Property Assessment Corporation appealed a decision granting the Near North Enviro-Education Centre a property tax exemption under s. 3(1)5 of the Assessment Act as an 'educational seminary of learning'.

The appellant argued the application judge erred in interpreting the exemption and applying the 'primary purpose' test by focusing on the institution rather than the actual use of the land, and by ignoring traditional indicia of a seminary of learning.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the application judge correctly applied the primary purpose test and the Keewaydin factors, and reasonably concluded that the institution's primary purpose, as reflected by its use of the land for environmental education in a rural community, qualified for the exemption.

The applicant, a person under disability, sought court approval for a full and final settlement of his statutory accident benefits claim, pursuant to Rule 7.08(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court approved the proposed settlement of $450,000, which included a structured component, finding it to be in the best interests of the applicant.

The decision also provided important clarification on the practice of pre-funding structured settlements in escrow, affirming that this process is appropriate and necessary to secure precise payment schedules and does not usurp the court's jurisdiction, as funds remain subject to withdrawal or amendment until final approval.

The appellant, a community development corporation, appealed a decision dismissing its application for a declaration that it was a 'local board' under the Municipal Affairs Act and thus exempt from property taxation under the Assessment Act.

The Divisional Court upheld the application judge's decision, applying the ejusdem generis principle of statutory interpretation.

The court found that the appellant did not provide core municipal services similar to the entities specifically listed in the definition of 'local board'.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Requestor sought Party status in a Zoning By-law Amendment appeal regarding a mixed-use development.

The Requestor held a registered right to purchase commercial space in the development and raised concerns about the proposed parkland dedication affecting this right.

The Tribunal denied the motion, finding that the Requestor's interest was a private legal matter outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction, not a valid planning issue.

Furthermore, the Requestor failed to participate in the earlier municipal and Tribunal processes despite having notice.

CPI Security Services Inc. (CPI) brought a motion for costs after 2465855 Ontario Ltd. o/a The Westin Prince, Toronto (Westin) accepted CPI's Rule 49 offer to settle but then defaulted on payment and costs.

CPI sought $54,121.12 in costs.

The court fixed CPI's costs of the action on a partial indemnity basis and costs of enforcing the settlement on a substantial indemnity basis, totaling $47,037.30.

The court found Westin's general claims of COVID-19 financial impact insufficient to justify default and noted Westin's lack of communication.

The court also reduced CPI's claimed costs for undertakings and pre-trial preparation, deeming them excessive.

The plaintiffs sought clarification of an endorsement that partially approved a $10,000,000 medical malpractice settlement on behalf of a minor.

The court convened a case conference and agreed to minor edits regarding the names of medical professionals and the exact amount of proposed counsel fees.

The court also clarified the net recovery amount for the minor's parents, which could be used for a property purchase, and the distribution of the structured and non-structured settlement funds.

The court remained seized of the matter pending the final disposition of the proposed counsel fee and the application for guardianship of property.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a $10,000,000 settlement arising from a medical malpractice claim involving severe birth injuries to the minor plaintiff.

The minor plaintiff sustained permanent neurological injuries, including cerebral palsy, requiring 24-hour care for the rest of her life.

The court approved the settlement allocation for the minor, her parents, and OHIP, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant litigation risks regarding standard of care and causation.

The court also authorized the parents to use a portion of their settlement funds to immediately purchase a wheelchair-accessible home, while reserving its decision on the proposed $3,136,500 counsel fee pending input from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a $10,000,000 settlement in a medical malpractice action involving a minor who suffered severe birth injuries resulting in cerebral palsy.

The plaintiffs' counsel sought approval of a contingency fee of $3,136,500.

The court adjourned the motion, finding that it could not assess the reasonableness of the proposed fee without reviewing the time dockets for each professional who worked on the file.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits, the successful insurer sought its arbitration expenses.

The applicant's former counsel had withdrawn, and the applicant did not appear at the expenses hearing.

The adjudicator found the insurer was entirely successful in its defence and entitled to its reasonable legal expenses.

Applying a global assessment approach, the adjudicator awarded the insurer $24,750 for fees and disbursements, inclusive of HST, noting the extensive hearing time and the importance of the surveillance investigation to the outcome.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two minor motor vehicle accidents in 2011 and 2012.

He had previously suffered a severe workplace injury in 2002, resulting in chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, largely due to extensive surveillance showing him performing activities he claimed he could not do, and his failure to disclose his pre-existing conditions to his assessors.

Applying the 'but for' test for causation, the arbitrator concluded that the applicant's impairments were solely attributable to his 2002 workplace injury and that he suffered no verifiable decline in function following the motor vehicle accidents.

All claims for non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, medical benefits, and cost of examinations were dismissed.

The judge convened a case conference regarding a proposed partial summary judgment motion by Defendants Gill and Freeway Auto Service to dismiss the action against them, which was opposed by Defendants Lorenzo and Martinez.

Citing Court of Appeal jurisprudence, the judge found the proposed partial summary judgment motion inappropriate due to the risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings of fact.

The judge suggested that a full summary judgment motion on liability for all defendants might be a more appropriate and efficient use of court resources.

The applicant sought a determination that he was catastrophically impaired under section 3(2)(f) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule due to mental or behavioural disorders following two motor vehicle accidents.

The applicant had significant pre-existing impairments from a 2002 workplace fall, including chronic pain and depression.

The adjudicator found that while the applicant suffered from a pain disorder and depression, his functional limitations were overstated and did not meet the threshold for a marked (Class 4) impairment.

Furthermore, applying the material contribution test, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant's current level of impairment was not materially caused by the motor vehicle accidents, as his condition was essentially the same as before the accidents.

The application for catastrophic impairment was dismissed.

However, the applicant was awarded $1,500 in costs due to the respondent's unreasonable conduct in delaying the closing submissions.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing his application for accident benefits and awarding $5,000 in costs to the insurer.

The appellant had failed to attend his arbitration hearing, after which his representative withdrew.

The arbitrator sent notices warning that the application might be dismissed if he did not respond, but he failed to do so.

The Director's Delegate found no error of law in the arbitrator's decision to proceed in the appellant's absence under Rule 37.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, and dismissed the appeal.

The applicant sought expenses following a successful arbitration where she was found to be catastrophically impaired.

The applicant claimed $154,064.95 in fees and disbursements.

The insurer argued the fees and disbursements were unreasonable.

The arbitrator reviewed the criteria under the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, noting the applicant's 100% success and the insurer's conduct which prolonged the hearing.

The arbitrator reduced the legal fees to exclude work done prior to the application for arbitration and reduced several disbursement claims to align with allowed amounts.

The applicant's expenses were fixed at $135,568.78.

Both parties requested reconsideration of several interlocutory procedural orders regarding the timing, content, length, and sequencing of supplementary written submissions following a hearing on whether the applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The Associate Chair found that the previous orders violated the rules of natural justice and procedural fairness by requiring the respondent to file submissions before the applicant.

The reconsideration was granted in part, previous orders were cancelled, and a new schedule for submissions was ordered.

The Applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident in November 2010 and sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to psychological issues.

The Insurer denied the claim, arguing the Applicant's mental health issues were due to a pre-existing bi-polar disorder and that she was malingering.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant suffered a marked impairment in the area of adaptation and that the accident materially contributed to her current state of mental health.

The Arbitrator preferred the evidence of the Applicant's experts and noted the Insurer's aggressive tactics in summonsing witnesses.

The Arbitrator concluded the Applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident.

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

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the applicant failed to attend.

The applicant's legal representative brought a motion to be removed as counsel of record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, which was granted.

The insurer subsequently moved to dismiss the application for arbitration with costs.

After providing the applicant with an opportunity to contact the tribunal, which he failed to do, the arbitrator dismissed the application and awarded $5,000 in expenses to the insurer.

The applicant sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding Statutory Accident Benefits without first appealing to the Director's Delegate as required by s. 283(1) of the Insurance Act.

After a previous stay, the applicant's late appeal to the Director's Delegate was dismissed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the current application for judicial review, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the arbitrator's decision directly and that the applicant must instead seek judicial review of the Director's Delegate's final decision.

The applicant was involved in a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident and subsequently claimed statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, housekeeping, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's chronic pain and psychological impairments were not caused by the accident.

The arbitrator applied the material contribution test and found the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing conditions, causing permanent impairment to her right shoulder and psychological disorders.

The applicant was awarded income replacement benefits, certain medical and assessment costs, and interest, but her claim for housekeeping benefits was dismissed due to insufficient credible evidence.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer requested an Examination Under Oath (EUO), which the appellant refused to attend unless benefits were reinstated.

The Arbitrator ordered the appellant to attend the EUO and stayed the arbitration hearing pending attendance.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate held that the Arbitrator erred, as there is no power to compel attendance at an EUO.

The only remedy for non-compliance is the suspension of benefits.

The appeal was allowed, and the Arbitrator's order was rescinded.