Jean-Claude Joseph Rioux

The applicant sought to validate a collection of handwritten and will-kit documents as the deceased's later will, or alternatively to undo an earlier validation order and have the estate administered on an intestacy.

The court applied the s. 21.1 substantial-compliance framework under the Succession Law Reform Act and accepted authenticity, but found the incomplete documents did not establish fixed and final testamentary intentions.

The absence of key pages, executor designation, and residue clause, together with references to an existing "copy of will" and "original will," supported the inference that the materials were ancillary directions rather than a new will.

The court also rejected the alleged revocation of the previously validated 2004 will and held that ordinary civil costs rules applied.

Following a successful application to enforce a personal guarantee, the applicant sought costs on a substantial and full indemnity basis, relying on the terms of the guarantee and a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The respondents argued the requested amount was excessive for a simple application.

The court agreed the applicant was entitled to elevated costs but discounted the requested amount by approximately 10% to reflect a fair and reasonable quantum, awarding $145,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The moving party, a self-represented defendant in a motor vehicle negligence action, brought a motion seeking an order that the insurer of the vehicle's owner had a duty to defend him and was required to appoint and fund independent defence counsel of his choosing.

The insurer denied coverage on the basis that the moving party operated the vehicle without the owner's consent, while simultaneously funding and directing the defence of the vehicle's owner, whose defence asserted that the moving party lacked consent.

The court held that the duty to defend is triggered by the mere possibility that a claim falls within the policy, and that the consent issue remained live and unresolved on the pleadings; extrinsic interview evidence relied upon by the insurer was inadmissible as premature.

The court further found a reasonable apprehension of conflict of interest arising from the insurer's simultaneous denial of coverage to the moving party and defence of the co-defendant on an adverse theory.

The motion was granted in its entirety; the insurer was ordered to defend the moving party through independent counsel of his choosing at the insurer's expense.

The applicant sought to enforce a personal guarantee signed by the respondent for debts owed by his cinema company.

The respondent argued the guarantee was unenforceable due to an alleged oral representation that it would not be enforced, and alternatively, that it was unconscionable.

The court held that the matter was appropriate for an application under Rule 14, as the bald allegation of an oral representation lacked credibility and did not require a trial.

The court also rejected the unconscionability defence, finding no unequal bargaining power or improvident bargain.

Judgment was granted in favour of the applicant for the outstanding debt of over $2 million.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders and entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRB).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, as he sustained only moderate, rather than marked, impairments in activities of daily living and adaptation.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychiatric assessment, noting the applicant maintained useful functioning such as driving, going to the gym, and caring for his parents.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRB, finding insufficient objective medical evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as an IT technician.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that a TTC bus driving over a raised manhole cover at excessive speed constituted a 'collision' with 'any other object' under s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act.

The respondent argued the adjudicator erred in law and fact by misinterpreting legislative intent, misapplying case law, and relying on tort law considerations.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact that would have led to a different result, and affirmed that the forceful impact caused by the bus's speed transformed the interaction into a collision.

The applicant was a passenger on a public transit bus that drove over a raised manhole cover in a construction zone at 57 km/h.

The respondent denied statutory accident benefits, arguing that under s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act, no benefits are payable to public transit occupants unless the vehicle collided with another automobile or object.

The Tribunal found that the raised manhole cover constituted 'any other object' and the forceful impact at excessive speed constituted a 'collision.' Therefore, s. 268(1.1) did not preclude the applicant from receiving benefits.

The applicant sought payment of $2,260.00 for a file review summary proposed in a treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the expense on the basis that it was duplicative, as a file review is included in the cost of each approved assessment.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that a file review is a necessary component of an assessment and not an independently billable task under s. 25(5) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial letter complied with s. 38(8) by providing a clear non-medical reason for the denial.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit and physiotherapy services.

The applicant failed to attend the videoconference hearing despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As no evidence was presented, the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proof, and the application was dismissed.

The court reviewed the Claims Administration Report submitted by RicePoint Administration Inc. regarding the distribution of settlement funds in a class action.

The report detailed the distribution of $550,033.00, including payments to class counsel, the Class Proceeding Fund, the representative plaintiff, and 53 approved class members, with the residual balance directed to the Canadian Red Cross.

The court approved the report pursuant to s. 27.1(17) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The applicant sought an order validating an undated, unwitnessed fill-in-the-blanks document as the deceased's last will and testament under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The respondent brother opposed, arguing the document was merely a draft and that his subsequent reconciliation with the deceased vitiated her intention to exclude him.

The court found the document represented the deceased's fixed and final testamentary intentions at the time it was made, and that a subsequent change in circumstances does not revoke a will.

The application was granted and the document was validated.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but the applicant failed to submit any evidence or written submissions.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the evidentiary burden to prove impairment or the reasonableness and necessity of the claimed medical benefits.

Claims for interest and a Section 10 award were also dismissed as no benefits were payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental/behavioural disorders and physical impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, as her psychological symptoms and knee osteoarthritis were pre-existing and not caused by the accident.

Claims for a non-earner benefit and various assessments were dismissed.

However, the Tribunal granted a treatment plan for chiropractic services, finding the applicant sustained permanent back injuries in the accident.

A claim for an award under Regulation 664 was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue chiropractic benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After multiple adjournments and a failure to attend a scheduled hearing in June 2021, the Tribunal put the applicant on notice of its intent to dismiss the application as abandoned.

The applicant subsequently failed to attend the re-scheduled hearing in September 2022 and provided no reasons for his absence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had abandoned his claim and dismissed the application without a hearing pursuant to Rules 3.4 and 3.5 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident when a car ran over his foot, causing a crush injury.

He sought post-104 week income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to post-104 week IRBs as he failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

Claims for attendant care benefits were dismissed because the applicant was largely independent and failed to prove his mother sustained an economic loss.

The Tribunal approved some treatment plans for assistive devices and physiotherapy, finding them reasonable and necessary, but denied others due to lack of contemporaneous medical evidence or failure to submit prior approval.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the first claim because the applicant had previously withdrawn it and failed to notify the insurer of a renewed dispute.

The Tribunal also found the second claim was not properly submitted.

In the alternative, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to prove the attendant care expenses were 'incurred' under the Schedule, as the care was provided by his wife, a retired personal support worker who was not employed at the time of the accident and did not sustain an economic loss.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) from the respondent insurer.

The central issue was whether the applicant's income and losses from various rental and development properties should be classified as self-employment income or passive investment income for the purpose of calculating the IRB.

The Tribunal determined that three of the properties generated passive rental income, while the development of a fourth property constituted self-employment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was entitled to an IRB of $325.00 per week, less applicable deductions, plus interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the issue of whether the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor was already determined in a 2020 Tribunal decision and was therefore subject to res judicata.

The Tribunal declined to waive res judicata, finding no new evidence to impeach the original decision.

The Tribunal also concluded that the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services and a chronic pain assessment were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) after the insurer terminated them.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, a self-employed painter and contractor, suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment within 104 weeks of the accident, primarily due to a specific phobia of driving.

For the post-104-week period, the Tribunal found the applicant was completely unable to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, due to a combination of physical and psychological impairments caused by the accident.

The applicant was awarded ongoing IRBs and interest, but his claim for a special award under Regulation 664 was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying him an income replacement benefit.

He argued the Tribunal erred in law by improperly applying the but-for test and erred in fact by placing too much weight on his pre-existing condition rather than his experts' opinions regarding his chronic pain syndrome.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the but-for test was properly applied to determine causation and that the weighing of evidence was within the hearing adjudicator's prerogative.