J.C. Rioux

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant had previously elected to receive an income replacement benefit, which is a final election under section 35(3) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the election was valid and final.

Furthermore, the application was barred by the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Schedule.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he did not testify or provide evidence comparing his pre- and post-accident life.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for a resumption of a case conference to seek further orders, including adding a claim for an award, further productions, and changing the hearing format from written to in-person.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing that the doctrines of issue estoppel and res judicata applied because the issues were allegedly disposed of at the initial case conference.

The Tribunal found that the prior decision was not final, as a claim for an award can be added at any time, making the production requests a live issue.

The Tribunal ordered a resumption of the case conference and changed the hearing format to in-person, noting that the complex issues in dispute would not be adequately addressed in a written hearing.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to attend the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to Rule 37.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement and presented no evidence, the application was dismissed.

The insurer was awarded $500 in expenses.

The applicant died of causes unrelated to a motor vehicle accident while his claim for accident benefits was pending.

The arbitration process was paused to allow for the appointment of an estate trustee.

After more than two years, the applicant's family confirmed they had no plans to appoint a representative.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application for arbitration.

The arbitrator found the claims could not be pursued without a legally appointed representative and dismissed the application on consent, with no order as to expenses.

The appellant partnership appealed a trial judgment dismissing its action and awarding the respondent former partner damages on his counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's calculation of goodwill attributable to the respondent's capital account, his conclusion regarding the equity of subsidiaries, or his calculation of goodwill for retained clients.

A dispute arose following the termination of a partner’s membership in a law firm regarding amounts owing under a partnership agreement.

The issues concerned the proper calculation of the departing partner’s capital accounts, including goodwill and subsidiary equity, and the value of work in progress and accounts receivable assigned to the departing partner.

The court interpreted the partnership agreement to determine capital entitlements and the deductions applicable to assigned WIP and A/R. After calculating both parties’ entitlements and obligations and applying a limitation period concession, the court concluded that only half of the net amount owing to the departing partner was recoverable.

Judgment was granted for the defendant for the recoverable portion.

A motion was brought to determine whether an insurer or the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund was required to respond to a pedestrian’s tort claim arising from a bus accident where the vehicle was not listed under the insured’s policy at the time of the accident.

Although the insurer had paid statutory accident benefits under the priority rules in O. Reg. 283/95, the issue was whether that payment rendered the claimant an insured entitled to uninsured motorist coverage under the Insurance Act.

The court held that the insurer’s obligation to pay accident benefits arose solely from the statutory priority scheme and not from an existing policy covering the accident.

Entitlement to accident benefits alone did not create insured status for uninsured motorist coverage.

The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to uninsured motorist coverage from the insurer.