Jeffrey Moorley

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) beyond the 104-week mark.

The respondent insurer terminated the benefits, relying on surveillance evidence of the applicant playing video games for extended periods and an assessment suggesting he could work in sedentary roles.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from a mild traumatic brain injury and lumbar radiculopathy, which completely impaired his ability to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's reliance on the video game surveillance, noting that gameplay does not equate to competitive employability in a real-world setting.

The applicant was awarded ongoing IRBs and interest, but his claim for a special award for unreasonable withholding of benefits was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendant's jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs argued that the indefinite suspension of civil jury trials in Thunder Bay due to the COVID-19 pandemic would cause severe prejudice, including the erosion of damages due to inflation and statutory deductibles.

The defendant urged a 'wait and see' approach.

The court granted the motion, finding that the local conditions and the indefinite delay of jury trials in the Northwest Region caused real prejudice that outweighed the defendant's right to a jury trial.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not receiving Employment Insurance (EI) benefits at the time of the accident.

The applicant's EI benefit period ended on June 30, 2018, and the accident occurred on July 8, 2018, although the applicant received his final EI payment on July 11, 2018.

The Tribunal held that an applicant is only 'receiving benefits' under the Employment Insurance Act during an established benefit period.

Since the benefit period expired before the accident, the applicant was not receiving EI benefits at the time of the accident and was ineligible for an IRB.

The appellant, a police officer who pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death in a 2008 collision that killed an 18-year-old, posted comments on Facebook in 2015 after completing his sentence.

The respondents, relatives of the deceased, commenced a defamation action.

The appellant brought a motion under s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act to dismiss the action, arguing his posts related to matters of public interest.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the posts did not relate to public interest but rather constituted an attempt to shift blame to the deceased and her family.

The motion judge awarded costs to the respondents despite the statutory presumption against such awards.

The Court of Appeal upheld both the dismissal of the s. 137.1 motion and the costs award.