James H. Chow

The defendant lawyers brought a motion for security for costs and a stay of proceedings against the corporate plaintiff in a legal malpractice action.

The court granted a temporary stay due to the plaintiff's failure to file annual returns under the Corporations Information Act.

On the security for costs motion, the court found that while the corporate plaintiff had no assets, it failed to prove impecuniosity because its shareholders, who were also creditors, refused to fund the litigation but did not provide evidence that they lacked the means to do so.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $60,000 in security for costs in three stages and stayed the action until the security is posted.

In an addendum to an appeal decision, the Court of Appeal for Ontario ordered costs of the appeal before the lower court judge to the appellants in the amount of $3,500 all inclusive.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice that interfered with an assessment officer's decision regarding a solicitor's account.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the appeal judge failed to apply the appropriate standard of review.

The court noted that an appeal from an assessment officer is only concerned with questions of principle, not amounts or discretion, unless the decision is unreasonable.

The assessment officer's order was restored.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated the benefits in 2005.

The appellant argued that the benefits had automatically converted to loss of earning capacity benefits, which are lifetime benefits subject only to mandatory reviews.

The arbitrator found that the benefits remained income replacement benefits because the formal process for conversion, including a residual earning capacity assessment or a written agreement, had not occurred.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the arbitrator's interpretation of the evidence and the statutory scheme.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly benefits from the insurer.

The insurer terminated benefits in November 2005.

The parties disputed whether the benefits paid from March 1997 to November 2005 were Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) or Loss of Earning Capacity Benefits (LECBs).

The arbitrator found that the benefits were IRBs, as the insurer never properly converted the IRBs to LECBs under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer's continued payment of weekly benefits after an LECB offer was rejected did not constitute an agreement to convert the benefits.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing an application on the basis that disputed facts required a trial.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the matter could not proceed by way of application, but held that the motion judge should have converted the proceeding into an action under the Rules of Civil Procedure rather than dismissing it without prejudice.

The appeal was allowed, the dismissal order was set aside, and directions were given for pleadings and discovery in the converted action.

No costs were awarded on the appeal.