Jason Paul Anand

The appellants appealed a small claims court decision ordering them to pay $5,628.41 for damage to a rental car provided to the appellant driver as a temporary substitute automobile.

The driver was entirely not at fault for the accident.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that section 263(5)(a.1) of the Insurance Act extinguished the rental company's right of action against the driver under the rental agreement because he was not at fault.

The court also rejected the rental company's argument that it could claim directly against the driver's insurer, concluding that the statutory scheme requires the rental company to look to its own insurer for compensation.

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

After the application was filed, the respondent paid the arrears and conceded ongoing entitlement, subject to its right to conduct future medical examinations.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lost jurisdiction because there was no longer a dispute.

The Tribunal held it retained jurisdiction because a dispute existed when the application was filed.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for the income replacement benefit as it had been conceded, and refused to issue a declaratory order of ongoing entitlement, finding it would be based on a hypothetical future denial.

The parties were directed to make submissions on interest.

Following a preliminary issue hearing where it was determined that the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' within the meaning of the Schedule, the successful insurer sought its expenses of the arbitration.

The insurer claimed $24,182.62 in costs.

The arbitrator considered the criteria under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

Noting that the applicant was an ODSP recipient and that the insurer's claimed hours were excessive given the nature of the preliminary issue, the arbitrator reduced the legal fees to a 2:1 ratio based on the Legal Aid Tariff.

The applicant was ordered to pay $3,028.22 in expenses.

The applicant was injured in a single-vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 9 or less.

The adjudicator found that while the applicant's GCS score dropped to 8T and 9T following surgery, this was due to pharmacologic sedation and intubation rather than brain impairment.

The applicant's initial GCS scores were 13 to 15, indicating no brain impairment upon arrival at the trauma centre.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant claimed he was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the injuries resulted from a physical altercation with the driver of an SUV, not from the use or operation of an automobile.

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony inconsistent with the police and emergency room reports, which indicated no physical contact between the SUV and the bicycle.

The arbitrator concluded that the physical altercation was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, meaning the injuries were not directly caused by the use or operation of a motor vehicle.

The application was dismissed as there was no 'accident' within the meaning of the Schedule.

Following a summary judgment motion determined in favour of the third parties, the plaintiff sought costs of $2,815.00 from the defendant for preparation and attendance.

The court found that the plaintiff's counsel provided no satisfactory explanation for late service of materials and failed to comply with the agreed timetable.

Consequently, the court awarded reduced costs to the plaintiff, fixed at $763.00 on a partial indemnity scale, covering only the estimated time for attending the motion.

The Third Parties moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims against them arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The Defendant, Samra, brought a cross-motion to amend her Third Party Claim to allege the Plaintiff, Juneja, was the driver.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the Third Parties' liability, concluding Samra was solely responsible for a precipitous left turn.

The summary judgment motion was granted, dismissing the Third Party Claim, and Samra's cross-motion was dismissed as moot.

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

The insurer initiated a Preliminary Issue Hearing to dismiss the application due to the insured's failure to attend insurer examinations.

Prior to the hearing, the insured attended the examination, rendering the preliminary issue moot.

The insurer sought its expenses for preparing for the hearing.

The Arbitrator reserved the issue of expenses to the arbitrator seized of the substantive arbitration, noting that the delay in attending the examination may be relevant to the final disposition.