J. Campisi

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a notice of application for judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying motor vehicle accident benefits.

The moving party had previously discontinued an application for judicial review due to adverse case law that was later reversed by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding no apparent grounds for relief, as the causation issue had already been decided on appeal and the allegations of institutional bias lacked specifics.

The court also noted the lengthy delay and the principle of finality weighed against granting the extension.

The defendant insurer brought a Rule 2.1.01 application to dismiss the plaintiffs' action as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs' claims arose from a motor vehicle accident, subsequent denial of statutory accident benefits, and alleged improper surveillance.

The plaintiffs also challenged the constitutional validity of certain Insurance Act provisions.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the constitutional challenge and the claims could not be properly assessed or struck out using the limited summary procedure under Rule 2.1.01, as it was not the clearest of cases.

The applicant, a disabled party by her litigation guardian, sought court approval for an Accident Benefit (AB) settlement and associated legal fees.

The court found the AB settlement of $744,116.26 to be appropriate and reasonable given the circumstances of the severe traumatic brain injury and multiple fractures sustained by the applicant.

However, the court adjourned the approval of the proposed legal fees for the AB claim, which were based on a 25% contingency fee.

The judge required the applicant's solicitor to provide actual time dockets to determine the fairness and reasonableness of the contingency fee agreement, noting that a previous tort settlement fee for the same client had been reduced due to insufficient docketed time.

The court emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of contingency fee agreements for parties under disability.