Jean-Claude Joseph Rioux

The plaintiffs brought a motion for the approval of a settlement in three consolidated class actions against three immigration lawyers for professional negligence.

The class members were Roma refugee claimants from Hungary whose applications failed or did not proceed while represented by the defendants.

The court approved the settlement of $500,000 in damages and $50,000 in costs, finding it fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class.

The court also approved class counsel fees of $181,500 and a $2,500 honorarium for the representative plaintiff.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a medical cannabis treatment plan to address chronic neck and back pain and sleep issues.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan, relying on a section 44 assessment that concluded cannabis was not reasonable and necessary for chronic pain.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's chronic pain specialist and cannabis clinic physician, finding that the treatment goals of reducing pain were reasonable and likely to be achieved.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the cost of the treatment plan, plus interest on the overdue amount.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a 2011 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits in August 2012.

More than five years later, the applicant filed an application for dispute resolution, arguing the limitation period was not triggered because she was illiterate in English and did not understand the denial.

The Tribunal found the denial was valid and clear, triggering the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act due to the significant delay and lack of a bona fide intention to appeal, concluding the application was statute-barred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment and a psychological assessment following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the treatment and assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish causation on a balance of probabilities, noting that contemporaneous medical records did not link her knee, back, and chest pain to the accident, but rather to subsequent intervening incidents including a fall at home, a boating incident, and a trip and fall.

The application was dismissed.

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

The insurer denied certain medical and rehabilitation benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor, his psychological impairments, including depression and post-traumatic stress symptoms, justified removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for a psychological assessment but denied the claims for physiotherapy treatment, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

The appellant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated IRBs on the basis that the appellant no longer suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to prove she was substantially unable to perform her pre-accident employment tasks after the termination date, noting her subsequent employment history and an intervening hand injury.

A claim for physiotherapy was denied because the treatment plan was not entered into evidence.

However, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for an occupational therapy in-home assessment because the insurer failed to provide proper medical reasons for denying the treatment plan, making it payable if incurred.

The plaintiffs brought motions to certify three proposed class actions for settlement purposes against three immigration lawyers.

The plaintiffs alleged professional negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in the defendants' representation of Roma refugee claimants from Hungary.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were met, noting that compliance is not as strictly required for settlement purposes.

The motions for certification were granted.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his motion for an extension of time to serve a Third Party Claim on Rosa Cavallo nunc pro tunc and for validation of service based on the pleading coming to her attention.

The appellant had issued the Third Party Claim alleging that foliage on the Cavallos' property created a hazard to motorists.

Rosa had moved to Italy and her whereabouts were unknown.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the evidence regarding service attempts was unreliable hearsay and that the pleading had not come to Rosa's attention.

The motion judge also refused to dispense with personal service, noting the potential liability far exceeded the policy limits and the case was weak.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusions regarding the hearsay evidence and the requirements of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Applicant sought accident benefits following a rear-end collision, claiming entitlement to attendant care benefits and the cost of an attendant care needs assessment.

The Insurer argued the Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant failed to meet the burden of proving his injuries fell outside the MIG, relying on the Insurer's expert medical evidence.

Consequently, the Applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits or the cost of the assessment.

The Applicant's claims were dismissed, and he was ordered to pay the Insurer's arbitration expenses.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer disputed the claim, alleging it was fraudulent and that the applicant was not in the vehicle.

The applicant failed to attend the preliminary issue hearing.

Based on the uncontested evidence of an independent witness who testified that the applicant was not in the vehicle, the arbitrator found the applicant was not involved in the accident.

The application for arbitration was dismissed without costs.

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

The insurer denied the claim on May 9, 2012.

The applicant submitted a second application for the same benefits, which was denied on May 9, 2013.

The applicant filed for arbitration on August 13, 2014.

The arbitrator held that the initial denial on May 9, 2012, was a clear and unequivocal refusal that triggered the two-year limitation period.

Submitting a new application did not restart the limitation clock.

Therefore, the application for arbitration was statute-barred.

The applicants were injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer capped their medical benefits under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and terminated the husband's income replacement benefits (IRB).

The arbitrator found that both applicants developed chronic pain, which is an aberrant physiology not contemplated by the MIG, thus removing them from the $3,500 cap.

However, the claims for specific medical benefits were dismissed for lack of evidence proving they were reasonable and necessary.

The husband was awarded his claimed IRB as his injuries caused a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment as a truck driver.

Expenses were awarded to the applicants.

The appellant sought to appeal an arbitrator's preliminary decision finding that the parties had not reached a settlement, and requested a stay of the upcoming arbitration hearing.

The Director's Delegate declined to exercise discretion to hear the interlocutory appeal, finding that it did not finally decide all issues in dispute and that hearing it would not facilitate the most cost-effective resolution.

The Delegate also refused to stay the arbitration hearing, noting the absence of special circumstances to take control of the process away from the hearing arbitrator.

The appeal was rejected without prejudice to renewing it after all issues are finally determined.

Corrigendum to a prior costs endorsement correcting arithmetic errors in the calculation of a costs award in a civil action.

The court adjusted the surveillance expense total and corrected the amount previously recorded in the endorsement.

The court also deducted a previously satisfied $1,000 costs order made by a Master.

As a result of these corrections, the supplementary costs endorsement amount was reduced.

Supplementary costs endorsement correcting disbursement and total costs figures in a prior costs decision.

The defendant advised that an expert invoice previously referenced should be replaced with a lower amount.

The court amended the disbursement total and the overall costs award accordingly to reflect the corrected invoice amount.

The decision adjusts the numerical totals in the earlier July 15, 2014 costs endorsement without altering the underlying entitlement to costs.

Third parties in a catastrophic personal injury action moved to set aside a defence filed on their behalf by their insurer’s counsel after the insurer mistakenly assumed the insured had been served with the third party claim.

In fact, the third party claim had never been personally served on the insured homeowner who had relocated abroad.

The court considered Rules 16.01(2), 1.04, 2.01, and 3.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and held that the deemed service rule should not apply where the defence was filed based on a mistaken assumption of service.

Emphasizing that procedural rules should not allow form to triumph over substance, the court set aside the defence and granted the defendant six months to attempt personal service of the third party claim.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision allowing the insured to claim income replacement and housekeeping benefits despite driving with an expired driver's licence at the time of the accident.

The arbitrator had applied the due diligence defence, finding the insured reasonably believed his licence was valid because he had not received a renewal notice.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate applied the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Lévis (City) v. Tétreault, holding that passive ignorance and reliance on administrative practices like renewal notices do not constitute due diligence.

The appeal was allowed, and the insured was precluded from claiming the benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied income replacement and housekeeping benefits under s. 30(1)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, arguing the applicant was driving with an expired licence.

The arbitrator held that the exclusion for driving without a valid licence is subject to a due diligence defence.

Finding that the applicant reasonably relied on the Ministry of Transportation to send a renewal notice, which was delayed due to a public service strike, the arbitrator concluded the applicant reasonably believed his licence was valid.

The exclusion did not apply, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration until the applicant attended an examination under oath pursuant to section 33(1.1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that while section 33 provides a remedy for non-compliance (potential disentitlement to benefits), it does not grant the arbitrator authority to stay the arbitration proceedings.

The arbitrator distinguished this from a failure to attend a section 42 medical examination, where a stay may be granted to prevent unfairness or abuse of process.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought arbitration after the insurer denied his claims for income replacement, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding the applicant's evidence regarding his self-employment as an artist and a purported employment contract to be unreliable and contradicted by his tax returns.

The claims for attendant care and housekeeping benefits were also dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence, including the absence of a recommendation from a qualified health practitioner and no proof that outside housekeeping services were actually engaged.

All claims were dismissed.