Jae Cho

The defendant driver brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action, supported by the co-defendants.

The plaintiff alleged she was injured in a rear-end collision while riding as a passenger in the defendant's ride-share vehicle.

Relying on GPS data, engineering reports, and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's medical history and statements, the court found the plaintiff's claim lacked credibility.

The court concluded on a balance of probabilities that the alleged accident never occurred and dismissed the action.

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

The insurer approved benefits within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) but denied further requests, including income replacement benefits (IRB), non-earner benefits (NEB), and a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and she failed to establish chronic pain or psychological impairment to warrant removal from the MIG.

The claims for IRB and NEB were dismissed due to lack of evidence, procedural defects, and failure to meet the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits and medical benefits for physiotherapy.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical impairments were sprain and strain-type injuries falling within the MIG, and she failed to provide sufficient medical evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment to warrant removal.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG due to a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, or psychological impairment.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had already been exhausted, the treatment plans were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to submit an evidentiary record to prove his injuries were not predominantly minor or that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a chiropractic treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant's medical evidence did not sufficiently support the need for the specific chiropractic services requested, especially given clinical notes indicating the applicant was golfing regularly and had a normal shoulder.

The application was dismissed.

Following an eight‑day civil trial in which the defendants were wholly successful, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiffs argued that costs should not follow the event because the litigation was pursued in the public interest and they were allegedly impecunious.

The court considered Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, the circumstances of the dispute, the parties’ reasonable expectations, and the existence of settlement offers.

While acknowledging potential financial hardship and the plaintiffs’ stated public interest motivations, the court found that the defendants were entitled to recover costs.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded in a reduced amount, payable jointly by the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

Prisoner passengers injured in a rear-end collision while being transported in a police prisoner transport vehicle sought punitive damages against the police service and related defendants after settling compensatory claims with other parties.

The plaintiffs alleged that the design of the transport vehicle—lacking seat belts, padding, visibility, and communication systems—demonstrated reckless disregard for prisoner safety.

The defendants argued the design reflected industry standards and balanced passenger safety with the need to prevent prisoner-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-officer violence.

The court held that punitive damages require malicious, high‑handed, or reprehensible conduct warranting denunciation.

Because the vehicle design reflected a rational policing approach supported by industry practice and reasonable debate over competing safety concerns, the conduct did not meet the threshold for punitive damages.