Jennifer Frear Griffiths

This criminal trial concerned charges of assault with a weapon and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle against Aaron J. George.

The charges arose from an incident in a busy parking lot where the accused, after being told to slow down, intentionally drove his vehicle into a pedestrian, causing him to fall onto the car's hood, and then sped away.

The court found the accused's testimony evasive and inconsistent, preferring the evidence of the Crown's witnesses.

The judge concluded that the accused's driving constituted an objectively dangerous marked departure from the standard of care and that the act of striking the pedestrian was intentional.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent paid a portion of the claimed expenses but denied the remainder, arguing they were not incurred.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's occupational therapy assessments, finding the applicant's condition had improved and she did not require the level of care claimed, particularly for night-time emergencies.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was not entitled to any attendant care benefits beyond what the respondent had already paid, as the additional expenses did not meet the definition of an 'incurred expense' under section 3(7)(e) of the Schedule and could not be deemed incurred.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and initially returned to work, resulting in the respondent denying his claim for an income replacement benefit.

Nearly five years later, the applicant stopped working and submitted a new disability certificate, which the respondent denied as statute-barred under the two-year limitation period in section 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal held that the principle of discoverability applied, as the applicant could not have discovered his claim while working.

In the alternative, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999 to extend the limitation period, finding the applicant's delay reasonable and the prejudice to the respondent minimal.

The preliminary issue was dismissed, allowing the claim to proceed to a full hearing.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant was barred from proceeding because the submitted Disability Certificate (OCF-3) indicated he did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and was therefore not 'completed' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that an OCF-3 is 'completed' if it is filled out, dated, and signed by a regulated healthcare professional, even if it does not support the claim for the specified benefit.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with his application on the merits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2000 and commenced an arbitration proceeding at FSCO in 2002.

A settlement was reached in 2004.

Fifteen years later, the applicant sought to rescind the settlement and continue the arbitration at FSCO.

The insurer argued that under the transitional provisions of O. Reg. 664, the proceeding was extinguished at FSCO and any new application must be brought before the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT).

The arbitrator held that pursuant to section 22(2) of O. Reg. 664, the proceeding was extinguished at FSCO because a settlement had been entered into, and directed that either party could reapply at the LAT.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault of a police officer, breach of probation, uttering threats to kill, attempted theft of a motor vehicle, and mischief.

The offences occurred on October 30, 2019, and involved threatening a homeowner and her family, assaulting a security guard with racial slurs and damaging his phone, and spitting on a police officer's face while in custody.

The Crown sought 15-18 months imprisonment; the defence sought 9-12 months or time served given COVID-19 circumstances.

The court imposed a sentence of 1 day plus 252 days of enhanced presentence custody (8.2 months), effectively time served, along with a 12-month probation order with no-contact conditions and ancillary orders including a DNA order and 10-year weapons prohibition.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) from the respondent.

The respondent later denied post-104-week IRBs based on several Insurer's Examinations.

The applicant applied to the Tribunal but withdrew the claim pending a catastrophic assessment, and the parties agreed to toll the limitation period.

The applicant failed to recommence the application before the tolling period expired.

The applicant argued the initial denial was invalid because the respondent failed to provide all examination reports to her treating practitioner under section 37(5) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the denial was clear and unequivocal, triggering the limitation period.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the LAT Act, finding the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding.

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

The respondent brought a preliminary issue to determine whether the applicant was entitled to apply for an attendant care benefit, arguing she failed to submit the required Form 1.

The adjudicator found that while the application was incomplete due to non-compliance with section 42(1) of the Schedule, this was a procedural technicality.

The adjudicator deferred the decision on the technical non-compliance to the hearing adjudicator who will determine entitlement and quantum.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding that she was not entitled to case management services under s. 17(1)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued that purchasing the optional catastrophic impairment benefit under s. 28(1)5 was sufficient to trigger entitlement, even without a catastrophic impairment designation.

The Associate Chair confirmed the Tribunal's decision, applying principles of statutory interpretation to conclude that the optional benefit is only 'available' if the insured person actually sustains a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant sought case management services following a motor vehicle accident, relying on the purchase of an optional catastrophic impairment benefit under s. 28(1) 5 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant had not been deemed catastrophically impaired.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that the plain language of s. 17(1)(b) read with s. 28(1) 5 requires both the purchase of the optional benefit and a catastrophic impairment designation to trigger entitlement to case management services.

The preliminary issue was resolved in favour of the respondent.

A young person was charged with second degree murder in connection with the death of S.K., who died from a single stab wound to the chest during a marijuana trafficking transaction that went wrong.

The accused admitted holding the knife that caused the fatal injury but claimed he was acting in self-defence and that the stabbing was accidental.

The Crown alleged intentional stabbing with either intent to kill or intent to cause bodily harm known to be likely to cause death.

The court found the accused not guilty of murder but guilty of unlawful act manslaughter, finding that while self-defence was not established, the accused did not have the specific intent required for murder.

The applicant, who suffered catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, sought a rehabilitation benefit of $6,698.64 for travel expenses to visit family in Iran, accompanied by an attendant care provider.

The insurer denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the travel was not a necessary expense under section 16 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, nor was it a permitted type of travel expense, as it did not have a counselling or training purpose.

Claims for interest and costs were also dismissed.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, sought attendant care benefits at the statutory maximum of $6,000 per month, despite only incurring a fraction of that amount.

The Tribunal held that under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the insurer is only liable to pay for attendant care expenses actually incurred, not the maximum assessed amount.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for a second $2,200 neuropsychological treatment plan, finding it was part of a single assessment subject to the $2,000 statutory cap.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the applicant's arbitration hearing pending the completion of additional section 44 insurer's examinations.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment determination and submitted rebuttal reports to the insurer's initial assessments.

The insurer argued the rebuttal reports constituted a material change requiring further examinations.

The arbitrator found no material change, noting the differing opinions between occupational therapists did not evidence a declining or changed condition.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with assaulting a peace officer engaged in the execution of his duty.

Following a break and enter and theft of cigarettes, the defendant resisted arrest, struggled with police, and during the altercation at the scene, bit a police officer's hand.

The defendant claimed the officer's hand was cut by his broken tooth when the officer was punching him.

The court found the police officers' testimony credible and reliable, rejected the defendant's version as unreliable given his state of intoxication, and found the defendant guilty of assault on a peace officer based on both the biting incident and the overall violent and belligerent conduct during arrest.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application for statutory accident benefits, arguing the issues had already been decided by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

At the preliminary motion hearing, the applicant's counsel requested an adjournment due to insufficient notice from the Tribunal.

During the hearing, the applicant discharged her counsel and requested an adjournment to retain new representation.

The adjudicator granted the adjournment, noting the Tribunal's error in communication and finding no prejudice to the respondent, while setting a schedule for potential costs submissions.

The Crown brought a pre-trial motion to qualify three police officers as expert witnesses in a prosecution for cocaine importation and money laundering.

The court applied the Mohan and Abbey tests for admissibility.

The court admitted the general opinion evidence of the money laundering expert, excluding portions relating to methods not alleged against the accused.

The court fully admitted the evidence of the cocaine trafficking expert, including opinions on pricing and cell phone use.

However, the court excluded the proposed evidence regarding Mexican drug cartels, finding it irrelevant to the charges and highly prejudicial as bad character evidence.

The insurer was successful in its appeal of an arbitration decision that had found the insured suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The Director's Delegate subsequently determined the issue of costs for both the arbitration and the appeal.

Applying the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, the Delegate found the insurer was entitled to its costs due to its success and the insured's conduct which prolonged the proceedings.

The Delegate awarded the insurer $20,000 in total costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, rejecting the insurer's claim for over $64,000 and noting that transcript costs are generally not recoverable.

The insurer appealed an Arbitrator's decision finding that the claimant suffered a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder and awarding ongoing attendant care and housekeeping benefits.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding that the Arbitrator failed to give adequate reasons, reversed the burden of proof, and failed to fairly consider the evidence.

The medical evidence presented by the claimant did not address the criteria under the AMA Guides, and her uncorroborated evidence was insufficient to prove catastrophic impairment.

The Arbitrator's orders were revoked, and the claimant was ordered to repay interim benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment, along with ongoing attendant care and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer denied the catastrophic designation based on a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) report.

The arbitrator found the DAC assessment flawed, particularly due to the absence of a mandatory psychological assessment.

Relying on the evidence of the applicant's treating psychologist and psychiatrist, the arbitrator concluded the applicant met the criteria for catastrophic impairment due to a marked mental or behavioural disorder.

The arbitrator awarded housekeeping benefits at the statutory maximum of $100 per week and attendant care benefits at $77.40 per month, declining the higher attendant care claim due to the absence of a supporting Form 1.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.