Harvey Michael Lewin

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal on a partial indemnity scale, fixed at $8,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The appellant attended a party at the respondent's property and fell from a newly constructed deck that lacked a railing, sustaining a fractured ankle.

At trial, the jury dismissed the appellant's negligence action, finding that the respondent did not fail to take reasonable care and that the appellant failed to take reasonable care for her own safety.

The appellant appealed, arguing the jury's verdicts on liability and damages were perverse and that the trial judge erred in admitting certain photographs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was an evidentiary basis for the jury's verdict, including evidence that the respondent had warned the appellant about the lack of a railing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for three years.

The insurer terminated benefits, and the applicant sought arbitration to reinstate them under section 12(5)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, claiming he was continuously prevented from engaging in any suitable occupation.

The arbitrator dismissed the application, finding the applicant's evidence regarding his post-accident employment and level of disability to be unreliable and not credible.

This finding was supported by surveillance video showing the applicant at his former workplace and medical evidence suggesting symptom magnification and voluntary simulation.

The applicant's claim for arbitration expenses was also denied due to his lack of credibility.

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

The Insurer terminated weekly income benefits, and the Applicant applied for arbitration.

The Insurer argued that the parties had entered into a binding settlement prior to the arbitration hearing.

The Arbitrator held that under section 9.1 of the Settlement Regulation, the delivery of a written notice by the insurer is a pre-condition to entering into a settlement.

Because the cooling-off period had not commenced or expired before the Applicant rescinded the agreement, no binding settlement was entered into.

The Applicant was permitted to proceed with the arbitration.