Jennifer A. Reid

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for delay.

The action arose from two separate events in 2009—an alleged slip and fall accident and a motor vehicle accident—and had been ongoing since 2011.

A timetable was imposed in 2015 requiring completion of discoveries, mediation, and trial set-down by specific dates.

The appellant failed to comply with the timetable.

The motion judge dismissed the action for inordinate and inexcusable delay, finding the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice and that a fair trial was no longer possible.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's analysis.

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

The insurer denied income replacement benefits, a medical benefit, and the cost of a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were not minor, as he suffered from a psychological impairment and chronic pain syndrome that could not be treated within the $3,500 MIG limit.

The Tribunal awarded income replacement benefits up to the 104-week mark, finding the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal also awarded the cost of a psychological assessment but denied the remaining balance for a physiotherapy treatment plan because the massage therapy rate exceeded the FSCO guideline limit.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle while crossing an intersection as a pedestrian.

She applied for accident benefits, but the respondent insurer denied treatment plans for psychological and physiotherapy services, arguing her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's severe major depressive disorder and situational phobia, as diagnosed by her psychologist, removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered payment for the psychological services as reasonable and necessary, but denied the physiotherapy services due to insufficient evidence supporting their necessity.

The appellants' counsel failed to appear for the appeal hearing, with an assistant citing counsel's illness.

The Court of Appeal noted a lack of supporting medical documentation and expressed serious doubts about the veracity of counsel's position.

The court refused a request for an adjournment, dismissed the appeal as abandoned, and awarded costs to the respondents.

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

After the applicant's representative was removed from the record, the applicant failed to attend the rescheduled arbitration hearing despite receiving notice.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration due to the applicant's failure to appear and present evidence.

The insurer was awarded $2,500 in expenses for preparation and attendance.

Following an arbitration where the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits was dismissed, the arbitrator determined the issue of expenses.

Applying the criteria under section 12 of Ontario Regulation 664, the arbitrator noted that the insurer was completely successful.

However, the arbitrator found that the issues regarding the specific treatment plans could have been raised at an earlier arbitration hearing between the same parties.

Concluding that both parties used the process to frustrate the other, the arbitrator ordered that each party bear their own expenses.

The applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits was previously dismissed as time-barred.

In this decision on expenses, the insurer sought over $6,000 in costs.

The arbitrator found that while the insurer was successful and entitled to expenses, the amount claimed was disproportionate to the simple preliminary issue hearing.

Applying the Legal Aid Services Act tariff as a guideline, the arbitrator fixed the insurer's reasonable expenses at $1,419.05, payable by the applicant.

The respondent insurer sought its legal expenses following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding statutory accident benefits.

The Director's Delegate found that while the appeal was brought in good faith, it was completely unsuccessful and essentially challenged findings of fact, which was not a good choice for an appeal.

The respondent was awarded its reasonable legal expenses, but the quantum was reduced from the claimed $3,299.52 to $1,548.19, as the preparation time claimed was excessive given the concise nature of the unrepresented appellant's submissions.