J. Douglas Wright

The respondent sustained a catastrophic impairment in a 2012 motor vehicle accident and received attendant care services from her mother, who took an unpaid leave from work.

Effective February 1, 2014, the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule was amended to limit attendant care benefits for non-professional providers to the amount of their economic loss.

The arbitrator found that the amendment did not apply to the respondent because her accident occurred before the amendment.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate reversed the decision, holding that under s. 268(1) of the Insurance Act, the amendment applies to all existing policies and claims for services provided after the amendment's effective date.

The respondent did not have a vested right to have her benefits determined under the pre-amendment Schedule.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought attendant care benefits and the cost of an in-home assessment from her insurer.

The insurer denied both claims in 2012.

The applicant filed for mediation in October 2014, more than two years after the denials.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the claims were statute-barred under subsection 56(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator applied the objective test from Turner, finding that the insurer's notices of refusal were clear and unequivocal, and that subsequent communications did not create an estoppel or waiver.

The arbitrator concluded that the application was statute-barred and dismissed the claims, awarding expenses to the insurer.

The applicant was catastrophically injured in a snowmobile accident and claimed attendant care benefits for services provided by her mother.

The insurer disputed the claims for periods when the applicant was hospitalized and when she lived with her boyfriend, and argued that a 2014 amendment to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule limited the benefit to the mother's economic loss.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims for the hospital and boyfriend periods, finding the applicant failed to prove economic loss and actual receipt of services, respectively.

However, the arbitrator held that the 2014 amendment did not apply retrospectively to limit the applicant's vested right to attendant care benefits.

Interest was awarded on overdue amounts, but the claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a decision of the motion judge granting summary judgment in favour of the respondents.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the reasons given by the motion judge, finding no error in the granting of summary judgment.

Costs of the appeal were fixed at $5,000.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their action for damages for personal injuries sustained on an amusement park ride.

At trial, the judge refused to instruct the jury that the respondent was a common carrier subject to a higher standard of care and a reverse onus, instead charging them on ordinary negligence and occupiers' liability.

The jury found no liability.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that an amusement park ride does not fall within the definition of a common carrier and the policy rationale for the higher standard of care does not apply.

The appellants appealed a costs order, arguing that their Rule 49 offer should have attracted cost consequences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion.

The trial judge correctly held that the offer lacked clarity, particularly regarding multiple claimants and the absence of reference to the Family Law Act claimant.

The Court affirmed the policy that Rule 49 offers must be crystal clear to be effective.

The applicant was struck by a car while crossing the street and claimed statutory accident benefits, including weekly income benefits and supplementary medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer terminated weekly income benefits on December 31, 1992.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility due to numerous inconsistencies in his evidence regarding his pre-accident employment, medical history, and the accident itself.

The arbitrator accepted the evidence of the insurer's medical expert that the applicant's ongoing symptoms were related to aging and a pre-existing heart condition, not the motor vehicle accident.

The application for further benefits was dismissed, and the applicant was awarded only half of his arbitration expenses.