Jennifer Frear Griffiths

Following a summary judgment motion with divided success between the plaintiff and Sun Life, the court issued a costs endorsement.

The court awarded costs to CHEO on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $20,000 plus HST and disbursements, finding the hours claimed to be excessive.

No costs were awarded between the plaintiff and Sun Life as both parties failed on their respective summary judgment motions.

The plaintiff sued her former employer and long-term disability insurer, alleging they negligently misrepresented her options and wrongfully induced her to resign rather than continue her disability benefits.

The employer and insurer both brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court granted the employer's motion, finding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the plaintiff's resignation and termination of employment, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the collective agreement's arbitration provisions.

However, the court dismissed the insurer's motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the insurer improperly maintained a singular focus on returning the plaintiff to a workplace environment that caused her disability.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on an icy sidewalk while completing a food delivery.

He had parked his vehicle, retrieved the food, and was walking to the delivery location when the incident occurred.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that the incident was not an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the use of the vehicle ended once the applicant retrieved the food and left the parked vehicle, failing the purpose test.

Furthermore, the slip and fall on the icy surface was an intervening event that broke the chain of causation, failing the causation test.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant was injured in a workplace accident and received WSIB benefits while retraining at an architectural firm.

He was subsequently injured in a motor vehicle accident, rendering him a paraplegic and unable to continue his retraining, which reduced his WSIB benefits.

He applied for income replacement benefits under the SABS, but his insurer denied the claim on the basis that he was not 'employed' at the time of the accident.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Licence Appeal Tribunal erred in its interpretation of 'employed' by requiring an exchange of wages for services, and held that the appellant's employment relationship and receipt of employment-related income satisfied the statutory requirement.

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

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding because he failed to notify the insurer of the accident within seven days and failed to submit the application for benefits (OCF-1) within 30 days, as required by section 32 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant delayed notifying the insurer for approximately 9.5 months and failed to provide a credible or reasonable explanation for the delay under section 34.

The applicant's explanation of mild symptoms and language barriers was not supported by medical records or other objective evidence.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he was not 'employed' prior to the accident and therefore not entitled to income replacement benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred by considering the quantum of WSIB payments, his decision to extend a work placement, and the interpretation of a WSIB letter.

The Tribunal found no error of law or fact in the original decision, noting that the evidence was relevant to determining whether the applicant received remuneration in exchange for services provided to an employer.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

At the time of the accident, the applicant was participating in a Work Transition Plan through the WSIB and working at an architecture firm, but his WSIB payments were not contingent on providing services to the firm.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not 'employed' under section 5(1)(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because he did not receive remuneration in exchange for the services he provided.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to income replacement benefits.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding it failed to respond to a $3,733.86 treatment plan within the 10-day period required by s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in fact regarding the submission date of the treatment plan.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the insurer was advancing a new argument not raised at the initial hearing.

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that even if an error of fact had been made, it would not have changed the outcome, as the original decision found no amounts were payable under the treatment plan because it was not incurred during the period of non-compliance.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant sought removal from the MIG, claiming she suffered from chronic pain with a functional impairment and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet her burden of proof.

The chiropractor's diagnosis of chronic pain was rejected as it was outside their scope of practice, and the psychological report lacked psychometric testing to substantiate its provisional diagnosis.

The application was dismissed, and the claims for a chiropractic treatment plan and interest were denied.

The applicant sought judicial review and appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision holding him to a 2004 settlement of his motor vehicle accident claims.

The applicant argued the settlement was invalid because he initialed, rather than signed, the Statutory Disclosure Notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant's failure to sign the specific signature line was a technical and immaterial defect that did not invalidate the notice or allow him to rescind the agreement.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding it lacked jurisdiction to award punitive damages for statutory accident benefits claims.

The appellant argued the LAT had jurisdiction or, alternatively, that section 280 of the Insurance Act was unconstitutional for eliminating punitive damages claims.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT's jurisdiction is strictly statutory and does not include punitive damages, as established by binding Court of Appeal precedent.

The court also rejected the constitutional challenge, finding the legislature clearly and validly removed jurisdiction over these claims from the courts to the LAT.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he was bound by a settlement agreement and precluded from proceeding to the Tribunal.

The applicant alleged the Tribunal breached procedural fairness, demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias, and made errors of law regarding the statutory requirements of an accident benefits settlement.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness, no cogent evidence of bias, and no errors of law or fact, concluding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate his case.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding the applicant was employed at the time of the accident and entitled to an income replacement benefit.

The respondent argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact by failing to apply the eligibility criteria in s. 5(1) of the Schedule and failing to consider the impact of the applicant's WSIB benefits under s. 47(3)(e) of the Schedule and s. 43(3) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding the original decision lacked the necessary analysis of these provisions.

The request for reconsideration was granted, the original decision was cancelled, and a rehearing by written submissions before a different adjudicator was ordered.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2000 motor vehicle accident.

The parties engaged in mediation and arbitration at FSCO, ultimately reaching a settlement in 2004.

The applicant signed the Settlement Disclosure Notice (SDN) by initialing each page but did not sign the specific acknowledgment line.

Years later, the applicant attempted to reopen the claim, arguing the settlement was invalid due to the missing signature.

The Tribunal found that a binding contract existed, the SDN substantially complied with O. Reg. 664, and the applicant failed to rescind the settlement within the two-business-day cooling-off period.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was tried on historic sexual offence charges arising from allegations by his younger half-brother.

The case turned entirely on the complainant's credibility and reliability, including delayed and piecemeal disclosure, inconsistencies, and the treatment of historic allegations recalled from childhood.

Applying the governing principles for historic sexual abuse evidence, the court rejected a motive-to-fabricate theory, accepted that the complainant's memory frailties were consistent with trauma and the passage of time, and found a history of sexual misconduct proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that two specific incidents fell within the indictment period, acquitted on the invitation count, and convicted on counts 1, 2 and 5.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after experiencing a severe psychological reaction when her vehicle's fuel tank emptied underneath her car due to a mechanical error.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the two-part test from Caughy and found that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The Tribunal concluded that the improper installation of the fuel pump was an intervening act and the dominant feature of the injuries was observing the leak, not the use or operation of the vehicle.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRB).

Prior to the accident, the applicant was participating in a Work Transition Program through the WSIB, which included a work placement.

The insurer denied IRB, arguing the applicant was not employed but receiving disability benefits.

The Tribunal found that the work placement created an employer/employee relationship, as the applicant was required to perform specific duties and report to a supervisor.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was employed at the time of the accident and entitled to IRB.

The self-represented applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of three separate motor vehicle accidents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, as she did not submit any catastrophic impairment assessments or medical reports demonstrating that she met the criteria under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

Certas Home & Auto Insurance Company appealed an interim arbitration decision which held that Unifund Assurance Company had complied with the notice provisions under s. 3(1) of O. Reg. 283/95 (Disputes Between Insurers) by providing timely notice of a priority dispute for statutory accident benefits.

The core issue was the interpretation of "completed application" and when the 90-day notice period for disputing liability began.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the regulation.

The court affirmed that a "completed application" for the purpose of s. 3 means one that provides sufficient information to allow the first insurer to notify another insurer of a dispute, not merely a filled-out and signed OCF-1 form.

This medical malpractice action concerned the plaintiff's claim of chronic pain resulting from the defendants' alleged negligence in treating a ruptured Achilles tendon.

The court found that while Dr. Boivin breached the standard of care by failing to properly immobilize the plaintiff's foot or refer her to a specialist, and Kingsway Health Centre was negligent in administrative follow-up, these breaches did not cause the plaintiff's injuries.

The plaintiff's own non-compliance with medical advice and delay in seeking surgery were found to be the cause of her worsened condition.

The court also found the plaintiff to be an unreliable and incredible witness regarding her injuries and financial losses.

The action was dismissed.