Jeffrey Pasternak

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming for massage therapy and an attendant care re-assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the massage therapy treatment plan partially reasonable and necessary, as the evidence showed it provided temporary relief of pain and improved function.

However, the Tribunal denied the attendant care re-assessment, finding the applicant's reported functional limitations were contradicted by social media evidence showing her traveling and participating in physical activities.

The applicant was awarded interest on the overdue massage therapy benefits but denied an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $15,028.57 in income replacement benefits (IRBs) paid to the respondent, arguing the payments were made in error.

The respondent's tax returns showed no reported employment income prior to the accident, meaning her IRB quantum under s. 4(5) of the Schedule should have been $0.00.

The respondent did not participate in the written hearing.

The Tribunal found the insurer provided proper notice under s. 52(2) and ordered the respondent to repay the overpayment plus applicable interest.

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment granted by the motion judge in a rear-end motor vehicle collision case that occurred on an icy road during freezing rain.

The appellant argued that the motion judge applied the wrong test and failed to address the alleged contributory negligence of the respondent, contending that the respondent should not have stopped on the highway.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error and confirming that the motion judge correctly applied the summary judgment test.

The court upheld the finding that the respondent did not act negligently in stopping her vehicle given the road conditions and visibility issues.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of a third party claim arising from a tug-of-war injury.

The plaintiff was severely injured during a recreational tug-of-war at a campground when his arm became caught in a loop in the rope, resulting in amputation of his forearm.

The appellants sought contribution and indemnity from the third parties who participated in the game.

The motion judge dismissed the third party claim, finding that the third parties owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that the third parties did not fall within any of the circumstances that would impose a positive duty to act, and that the injury was not a reasonably foreseeable result of participation in a recreational tug-of-war game.

This costs endorsement follows a motion where the defendant sought dismissal of the plaintiff's claim, which was denied, but other orders were made to advance the matter.

The plaintiff, self-represented, sought costs.

The court found the plaintiff was prima facie entitled to costs as the defendant was unsuccessful in its primary request for dismissal.

However, the plaintiff's claim for costs was significantly reduced due to insufficient evidence of lost remunerative activity, excessive hours claimed, and unsubstantiated disbursements.

The court awarded the plaintiff $500 in costs, inclusive of time and disbursements, noting that the plaintiff's inaction necessitated some of the orders made.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought the cost of three examinations (a functional abilities evaluation, a physiatry assessment, and a chiropractic assessment) five years post-accident.

The respondent denied the assessments as not reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator found that the applicant had returned to his pre-accident employment as a millwright without modifications and was able to perform his activities of daily living.

Preferring the evidence of the respondent's physiatrist who examined the applicant over the applicant's experts who only reviewed documentation, the adjudicator concluded the assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

The claims for the cost of examinations, an award for unreasonably delayed payments, and interest were dismissed.

Following the successful summary judgment motions by six third parties dismissing the third party claims against them, the court determined the costs to be awarded.

The defendants argued that costs for a prior summary judgment motion and an appeal should not be included.

The court found that the preparation for the prior motion and attendance at the appeal were incidental to the third party claims and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, rejecting a request for substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants in a personal injury action arising from a recreational tug-of-war game brought a third-party claim for contribution and indemnity against several other participants in the game.

Six of the third parties moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against them.

The court applied the Anns/Cooper test and found that the participants did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, as they did not organize the event, create the risk, or have a special relationship requiring them to take positive action to prevent injury.

The court granted the motions and dismissed the third-party claims.

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

The matter was scheduled for an arbitration hearing, but the applicant failed to attend or send a representative, despite receiving proper notice.

The arbitrator proceeded in the applicant's absence and dismissed the application for arbitration because the applicant failed to meet her onus of proving entitlement to the claimed benefits.

The applicant was ordered to pay $1,500 in expenses to the insurer for the costs of preparing for the hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits from the insurer.

The parties disputed whether the applicant, who worked as a driving school instructor, was self-employed or an employee at the time of the accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was self-employed, as he engaged in his occupation as a sole proprietor, filed his taxes as such, and received payments inclusive of HST without employment deductions.

The clear definition of 'self-employed person' in section 3(1) of the Schedule was met, rendering traditional factual indicia tests unnecessary.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After his paralegal withdrew due to a breakdown in the relationship, the applicant failed to attend the pre-hearing discussion and the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims because the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof.

The insurer was awarded $500 in expenses due to its complete success and the applicant's failure to participate, which prolonged the proceedings.