Howard Jason Hickman

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

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

The applicant failed to attend, arguing she did not receive the notices due to a change of address.

The Tribunal found the notices were properly served on the applicant's legal representative.

As the applicant failed to comply with section 44, she was barred from proceeding with her application under section 55 of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant, Gamma Construction Ltd., appealed a lower court's decision regarding causation under the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the application judge's conclusion that causation was not made out, applying the Amos v. The Insurance Corp. of British Columbia test.

The court found that the use of the automobile, as it related to the injuries, was merely incidental or fortuitous, and therefore, the causation finding was unassailable.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and the cost of various assessments.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the claimed attendant care benefits were incurred or reasonable and necessary, given her self-reported independence with activities of daily living.

The Tribunal also found that the proposed psychological, chiropractic, and neurological assessments and treatments were not reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the insurer's examiners.

As no benefits were payable, claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

Both the applicant and respondent sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The Vice-Chair found the Tribunal erred in awarding attendant care benefits at the Form 1 amount of $2,894.99 per month for a period when the applicant's wife provided care, reducing it to her actual economic loss of $935.00 per month.

The Vice-Chair also found the Tribunal erred in its formula for calculating the special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 and directed the parties to recalculate it.

The Tribunal did not err in fixing an end date for benefits at the 104-week mark or in finding the respondent unreasonably withheld benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits, which the insurer denied.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant's appeal should be barred under section 55(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because he refused to attend further insurer's examinations (IEs).

The Tribunal applied the Al-Shimasawi factors and found the requested IEs were not reasonably necessary, noting they were requested at the '11th hour' before the hearing and without sufficient evidence of new medical information.

The Tribunal held the applicant was entitled to refuse attendance and allowed the appeal to proceed.

The applicant's request for costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident in November 2014.

At the in-person hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the applicant withdrew her claim for an award under section 10 of Ontario Regulation 664, and the parties settled all remaining issues.

The Tribunal closed the file.

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

The respondent denied further benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered a fractured sternum and psychological impairments, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal awarded income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and certain medical/assessment costs.

Furthermore, the Tribunal granted a special award of 40% of the outstanding attendant care benefits, finding the respondent unreasonably withheld payment by intentionally misrepresenting its assessors' findings to keep the applicant within the MIG.

Self-represented plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add a law firm as a defendant and sought to re-examine or examine a non-party witness.

The court held that the proposed claim against the law firm was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of any potential claim years earlier and failed to bring a motion to add the firm before the limitation period expired.

The court also rejected requests to re-examine or examine a non-party because the procedural requirements under the Rules of Civil Procedure had not been met.

The motion was therefore denied, although discovery deadlines and case management timelines were extended to permit the action to proceed.

The applicants brought a motion to amend a statement of claim in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident to add Family Law Act claims after the expiry of the two‑year limitation period.

The primary action had been commenced within the limitation period by the injured plaintiff.

Following the plaintiff’s death, her spouse and mother sought to be added as plaintiffs under s. 61 of the Family Law Act for loss of care, guidance, and companionship.

The court held that the derivative claims could be added because the main action had been commenced in time and there was no compensable prejudice to the defendant.

Alternatively, the court found an evidentiary basis that the claims were not discoverable until the plaintiff’s death when the damages exceeded the statutory threshold.

The insurer sought its expenses of $4,351.51 for a preliminary issue arbitration hearing after successfully appealing the initial decision.

The original arbitration decision allowed a third-party insurer to proceed with a claim in the applicant's name, but this was overturned on appeal.

The arbitrator found that the issue in dispute was novel and that the third-party insurer was entirely successful at the original hearing.

The arbitrator concluded that the insurer's subsequent success on appeal did not negate the third-party insurer's success at the preliminary hearing, and ordered each party to bear their own expenses.

Following a successful appeal regarding the validity of an assignment of statutory accident benefits, the appellant insurer sought its legal fees and disbursements.

The Director's Delegate found that the appellant was successful on the novel issue of the assignment's validity.

Applying the criteria for awarding expenses, the Director's Delegate awarded the appellant $4,700 in legal fees and disbursements.

The applicant's representative sought to be removed from the record due to an irreparable breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The applicant opposed the removal, citing his inability to represent himself.

Applying the principles from R. v. Cunningham, the arbitrator granted the request to withdraw, noting that there were no scheduled proceedings requiring an adjournment and the withdrawal was sought for ethical reasons.

The arbitrator declined the insurer's request to order the representative to produce documents directly to the insurer, instead ordering the representative to release the file to the applicant to avoid prejudicing the applicant's ability to claim privilege.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After failing to resolve disputes through mediation, the applicant applied for arbitration.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the arbitration without a hearing because the applicant failed to comply with a previous order and did not attend the pre-hearing.

The arbitrator found the proceeding to be frivolous and commenced in bad faith, dismissing the arbitration and awarding reasonable expenses to the insurer.

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

After his solicitors were removed from the record, the applicant failed to notify the Commission of his intention to proceed with the arbitration, despite being ordered to do so.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the arbitration without a hearing.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had abandoned his arbitration and issued a notice of intention to dismiss the proceeding as frivolous, vexatious, or made in bad faith, giving the parties 20 days to object.