Jeffrey Sheridan Shinehoft

The applicant was struck by a motor vehicle and sought various medical, rehabilitation, and examination benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's policy limits for non-catastrophic medical and rehabilitation benefits had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed exhausted the $65,000 policy limit under section 18(3)(a) of the Schedule and had not been deemed catastrophically impaired.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

Case management endorsement setting the timetable and filing directions for two motions for leave to appeal brought by the moving parties.

The motions are to proceed together in writing before a panel of three judges of the Divisional Court.

The plaintiffs, Steven and Carolyn Nadeau, brought an action for damages after Steven Nadeau was injured by an automatic garage door.

They sued the building owner (Ontario), property manager (CBRE), door installer (Wilcox), garage manager (SP Plus), and maintenance contractor (Haws).

Wilcox, SP Plus, and Haws each brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the action against them.

The court granted Wilcox's motion, finding no duty of care owed to the plaintiffs and no basis for cross-claims, deeming it a rare case suitable for partial summary judgment.

The motions brought by SP Plus and Haws were dismissed, as genuine issues requiring a trial remained regarding their respective duties of care and, for SP Plus, ambiguities in contractual indemnification clauses.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury verdict that resulted in net zero damages due to deductibles and prior settlements, the court ruled on the defence's threshold motion.

The court preferred the evidence of the plaintiff's experts, finding that the plaintiff suffered from chronic pain syndrome caused by the accident.

The court concluded that the plaintiff sustained a permanent and serious impairment of an important function, thereby meeting the statutory threshold, despite the action ultimately being dismissed.

Following a trial in which the plaintiffs’ occupiers’ liability claim arising from a fall in a municipal park was dismissed, the defendant municipality sought costs.

The court held that as the successful party the defendant was entitled to its costs of the proceeding on a partial indemnity basis.

A defence offer to settle consisting of dismissal without costs was found largely irrelevant to the costs determination.

After reviewing the costs outline, the court reduced the defendant’s requested amount as excessive and disallowed certain charges, including those related to other dismissed Family Law Act claims.

The court fixed costs for trial and pre‑trial work and awarded a total amount including HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff sued the City of Hamilton for injuries sustained after falling into a ravine in a wooded area of a city park at night.

The court held that the lower standard of care under s. 4(1) of the Occupiers' Liability Act applied because the plaintiff was engaged in a recreational activity and had wandered off a marked recreational trail.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the City did not act with reckless disregard for the plaintiff's safety, as it had no prior knowledge of the danger and the natural hazards were obvious.

Damages were assessed provisionally.

The court considered materials relating to approval of a proposed settlement involving an injured minor and related Family Law Act claims.

The proposed global settlement totalled $30,000 and included allocations for legal fees, disbursements, parental claims, and repayment to the provincial health insurer.

The court identified deficiencies in the settlement approval materials, including the absence of the retainer agreement, incomplete docket totals, and lack of evidence that fee increases had been approved by the litigation guardian.

Concerns were also raised regarding the proportion of legal fees relative to the minor’s recovery and duplication of work arising from earlier defective filings.

The court directed counsel to cure the deficiencies before the settlement could be completed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, housekeeping, and medical benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant could return to work and perform housekeeping.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments caused by the accident, rendering her substantially and completely unable to engage in her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker or any suitable alternative employment.

The arbitrator awarded ongoing income replacement benefits, partial housekeeping benefits, and specific medical benefits, while dismissing other claims for lack of evidence.

The applicant, a store manager, was seriously injured in a car accident and required a medical leave of absence.

The respondent terminated her employment after 14 days, mistakenly believing that the Employment Standards Act permitted termination once the 10 days of unpaid emergency leave were exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the respondent discriminated against the applicant on the basis of disability and failed to accommodate her to the point of undue hardship.

The respondent was ordered to pay $17,000 for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, $1,170 for lost wages, and to undergo human rights training.