Irina Iulia Sfranciog

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

She claimed psychological injuries triggered by viewing a video of the accident scene, which showed a house where she had previously experienced abuse.

The Tribunal found that viewing the video did not constitute an 'accident' under the Schedule, as it did not arise from the ordinary use or operation of an automobile.

Consequently, her psychological impairments were not accident-related.

The Tribunal also found her physical injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline.

Claims for income replacement benefits, psychological treatment plans, an award, and interest were dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied the benefits and sought repayment of previously paid IRB, arguing the applicant was excluded under s. 31(1)(a)(i) of the Schedule because he knew or ought reasonably to have known he was operating the vehicle without valid insurance.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony that he believed he had purchased valid insurance from a 'broker' to be not credible, given his prior experience with insurance and the suspicious circumstances of the transaction.

The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for IRB, interest, and a special award, and ordered the applicant to repay $19,177.60 in IRB to the respondent.

The appellant, TD Home and Auto Insurance Company, appealed a motion judge's decision granting summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' action against the vehicle owner and granting a rule 21 motion determining that a passenger was not entitled to indemnity under the owner's insurance policy.

The passenger had seized control of the vehicle's steering wheel during an argument, causing a collision that injured one of the plaintiffs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the rule 20 appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the vehicle owner was not negligent and was not vicariously liable under the Highway Traffic Act because the passenger took control of the vehicle without consent.

However, the Court allowed the rule 21 appeal, setting aside the determination regarding insurance coverage due to insufficient reasoning and procedural defects.

The Court reduced the costs award accordingly.

The defendant Sarah Park, through her insurer State Farm, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action and crossclaim against her, arguing she was not liable for a car accident caused by her passenger, Giancarlo Hnatiuk, who grabbed the steering wheel without her consent.

State Farm also sought a determination under Rule 21.01(a) that Hnatiuk was not covered by Park's insurance.

The plaintiffs and co-defendant TD Home and Auto Insurance Company (TD) opposed the motions, alleging bad faith, inappropriateness of partial summary judgment, and contributory negligence by Park.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, as Hnatiuk took control of the vehicle without Park's consent, and his actions were not reasonably foreseeable.

The court also determined that Hnatiuk was not covered by Park's insurance.

Costs were fixed against TD.

Four consolidated appeals from orders of a motion judge who dismissed actions brought by appellants against resort management companies based on a foreign limitation period.

The appellants purchased vacation packages to a Dominican resort and alleged that two of their group were injured when a balcony railing gave way on January 1, 2011.

The motion judge dismissed the actions as statute-barred under Dominican law, which imposed a six-month limitation period for tort claims.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by failing to conduct a proper jurisdictional analysis and by making palpable and overriding errors of fact regarding whether the appellants had a contractual claim against the respondents.

The court found that Ontario courts had jurisdiction and that the motion judge's reasons were inadequate for appellate review.

A plumber used an open flame torch to repair a leaking pipe in the basement of a heritage mansion.

Shortly after the repair was completed, a massive fire broke out, destroying the house.

The property owner and the condominium corporation's insurers brought a subrogated negligence claim against the plumbing company.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove causation, as there was no evidence the downward-directed flame ignited combustibles in the adjacent joist space.

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to establish a breach of the standard of care because they did not call expert evidence on the standard expected of a reasonably prudent plumber performing soldering work.