Ian A. Little

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The respondent insurer sought to deduct the applicant's Employment Insurance (EI) sickness benefits from the IRB as "gross employment income" and requested a repayment of previously paid IRBs.

The Tribunal held that EI sickness benefits are not deductible from an IRB, as they are not considered gross employment income and are specifically excluded from being deductible as temporary disability benefits under the Schedule.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the respondent's repayment notice was deficient and unclear.

The applicant's claims for a special award and costs were dismissed, as the respondent's conduct in taking a position on a novel legal issue did not meet the threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a physiotherapy treatment plan outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and did not warrant removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The application for IRBs, the treatment plan, an award, and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a medical benefit for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant did not meet the test for a non-earner benefit, as video surveillance and medical assessments demonstrated she had resumed most of her pre-accident activities, including caring for her children, driving, and household chores.

The adjudicator also denied the medical benefit for chiropractic services, finding it was not reasonable and necessary because the applicant had reached a plateau in her recovery and was successfully participating in an independent exercise program.

Claims for an award under Ontario Regulation 664 and interest were consequently dismissed.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his action against his own motor vehicle liability insurer for uninsured or unidentified automobile coverage.

The appellant was struck from behind in a motor vehicle accident and argued that if the jury found neither of the two identified drivers liable at trial, he should be able to recover under the uninsured/unidentified automobile coverage.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that there was no unidentified automobile involved in the accident and that the sole question at trial would be which, if either, of the two known vehicles or drivers was legally responsible.

The defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis of $45,399.84 following the dismissal of the plaintiff's slip and fall action.

The trial was conducted under the simplified procedure rules and damages had been agreed at $20,000.

The court found the defendant's claimed costs excessive and disproportionate to the agreed damages and the complexity of the case.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages after tripping and falling in a parking lot owned by the defendant.

She alleged that she tripped over an insufficiently marked and maintained speed bump.

The court found that the speed bump's markings complied with industry standards and provided adequate warning.

Furthermore, the plaintiff could not objectively prove what caused her fall, relying only on speculation after returning to the scene weeks later.

The action was dismissed.

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

The disputed benefits included a treatment plan for assistive devices, a treatment plan for physiotherapy and massage, a non-earner benefit, and a special award.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the non-earner benefit, as she demonstrated a complete inability to carry on a normal life, having gone from an active, independent lifestyle to being dependent on her grandson and church community.

The Tribunal also approved the assistive devices, except for blind spot mirrors, but denied the treatment plan for physiotherapy and massage, finding it was not reasonable and necessary given the lack of improvement and the recommendation for alternative treatment.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue payments.

The applicant's spouse was involved in a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The following day, he committed suicide by overdosing on sleeping pills.

The applicant sought death benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, arguing the suicide was a direct result of the accident.

The arbitrator found no causal nexus between the use or operation of the vehicle and the suicide, concluding the death was not directly caused by the accident.

The claim for death benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought death benefits following the death of her spouse in a motor vehicle accident.

At the hearing, the insurer objected to the applicant testifying because her counsel failed to provide a witness list in advance, contrary to a pre-hearing agreement and Rule 41 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The arbitrator ruled that the applicant could testify, noting that the insurer was prepared for cross-examination, claimed no prejudice, and procedural fairness required allowing the applicant to present her case fully.

The plaintiff brought a motion to withdraw admissions made by her former counsel at a status hearing, which had limited her damages claim to avoid the action being dismissed for delay.

The defendants brought cross-motions to hold the plaintiff to those admissions and strike portions of the statement of claim exceeding them.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motions, holding that a client is bound by the representations and admissions made by their counsel in court under the doctrine of ostensible authority.

The applicant, an 88-year-old pedestrian, was struck by a pole knocked over by a truck insured by the respondent.

She sought interim medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits pending a full arbitration hearing to determine if she is catastrophically impaired.

The applicant had exhausted her non-catastrophic limits and required 24-hour care.

The arbitrator found that the applicant established a prima facie case for catastrophic impairment, noting that the insurer's own neurologist found severe cognitive impairment secondary to the accident, which was improperly omitted from the insurer's multidisciplinary whole person impairment rating.

Considering the applicant's financial hardship, the risk of irreparable harm, the low risk of prejudice to the insurer (who was also the tort insurer), and the delay in scheduling the hearing, the arbitrator granted interim benefits of up to $3,000 per month.

The Appellant appealed an arbitration decision that denied her claim for post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs) and ordered each party to bear their own legal expenses.

The Director's Delegate upheld the denial of IRBs, finding no error of law in the Arbitrator's assessment of the evidence and credibility, noting that an appellate officer cannot retry the case or substitute findings of fact.

However, the Delegate found that the Arbitrator breached procedural fairness by deciding the issue of legal expenses without providing the parties an opportunity to make submissions.

The legal expenses issue was remitted to arbitration for redetermination.

The Appellant was awarded $500 in appeal costs.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' claims for non-earner benefits, the insurer sought its expenses of the arbitration.

The arbitrator found the insurer was entitled to its expenses based on its complete success, despite some conduct that prolonged the hearing.

The insurer voluntarily reduced its claim to $5,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.

After disallowing a non-recoverable disbursement for reporting services, the arbitrator ordered each applicant to pay the insurer $2,029.92 in expenses.

The applicants, twin brothers who were 11 years old at the time, claimed non-earner benefits (NEBs) alleging they suffered psychological or mental injuries as a result of their mother's physical injuries in a 2004 motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator found that while the applicants' lives changed after the accident, primarily due to their mother's condition and their parents' subsequent separation, they failed to prove they sustained a psychological or mental injury within 104 weeks of the accident.

Furthermore, their post-accident school performance and overall function were consistent with their pre-accident demonstrated potential.

The applications for NEBs were dismissed.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident where liability had been admitted, the plaintiff recovered damages of $280,525.60.

The parties disputed entitlement to costs in light of competing offers to settle under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the defendant’s offer to settle for $375,000 complied with Rule 49 and triggered the usual cost consequences because the plaintiff obtained a judgment lower than the offer.

The plaintiff was therefore entitled to partial indemnity costs only up to the date of the defendant’s offer, while the defendant was entitled to partial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court reduced both parties’ claimed fees and disbursements as excessive and fixed costs at equivalent amounts, resulting in a full set‑off.

During a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought to qualify a chiropractor as an expert to testify about an in‑home functional assessment.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether the proposed testimony satisfied the admissibility criteria for expert evidence under R. v. Mohan.

The judge found the proposed opinion exceeded the witness’s professional expertise, overlapped with evidence already provided by more qualified medical experts, and largely repeated the plaintiff’s own testimony.

Because the proposed evidence lacked necessity and probative value, the witness was not qualified as an expert.

The ruling emphasizes the trial judge’s gatekeeping role in scrutinizing expert evidence and preventing unnecessary or duplicative expert testimony.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not employed at the time of the accident and that the application for mediation was filed beyond the two-year limitation period.

The Arbitrator found that the applicant had only completed a training period and was not employed at the time of the accident.

Furthermore, the Arbitrator held that the applicant failed to file an application for mediation within the two-year limitation period following a clear denial by the insurer.

The preliminary issues were resolved in favour of the insurer.

The applicant sought interim income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had returned to work shortly after the accident but stopped working over a year later, citing medical advice.

The insurer denied benefits based on multiple assessments concluding the applicant was not substantially disabled.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion for interim benefits, finding that there were too many unanswered questions regarding causation, disability, and post-accident income, which required a full hearing to resolve.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that he was not catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued that the Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) assessment was flawed and not binding, but provided no independent evidence of catastrophic impairment.

The Director's Delegate held that the arbitrator committed no error of law in weighing the merits of the DAC assessment and relying on it in the absence of contrary evidence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the arbitrator's costs award against the appellant was upheld.

The applicant sought an assessment of her arbitration expenses following a previous decision awarding her 70 percent of her expenses.

The insurer refused to pay the claimed amount of $6,038.61, arguing it was excessive and that the applicant had rejected a settlement offer.

The arbitrator found the insurer's settlement offer did not comply with the Settlement Regulation.

Applying a 1:1 ratio for preparation to hearing time, the arbitrator awarded the applicant $4,840 plus GST for legal fees and disbursements, including $200 for the assessment proceeding.