4 total
Application for accident benefits dismissed; applicant failed to prove injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRB) and medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit due to chronic pain and psychological impairment.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports which concluded she suffered only soft-tissue injuries.
As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRB, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment or a complete inability to engage in any employment.
Application for accident benefits dismissed as expenses were incurred without a required treatment plan.
The applicant sought $2,028.20 for osteopathy, kinesiology, and physiotherapy services incurred without first submitting a treatment plan, arguing the exception under s. 38(2)(d) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule applied.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the insurer did not explicitly or implicitly agree that the previously-incurred expenses were essential for the applicant's treatment or rehabilitation.
The application was dismissed, and the applicant was denied the expenses, interest, an award, and costs.
Summary judgment granted only in part on a defaulted chattel mortgage.
The plaintiff mortgagees moved for summary judgment arising from a chattel mortgage over a mobile home after the defendants defaulted on monthly payments.
The court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the plaintiffs' entitlement to possession of the collateral and on their entitlement in principle to payment of principal, interest, and insurance amounts authorized by the mortgage.
However, material factual disputes remained regarding the number of missed payments, the date from which interest was payable on certain defaults, the amount of insurance premiums paid, and whether lot rental payments were recoverable at all.
A trial was therefore required on those disputed monetary issues.
Summary judgment refused where evidence raised genuine issue about assignment of contractual rights.
The moving party sought summary judgment to enforce minutes of settlement arising from an alleged failure by the responding parties to comply with an accepted offer.
The motion was brought under Rule 20 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court reviewed documentary evidence and affidavits relating to whether the moving party’s contractual rights had been assigned to a corporate entity prior to the settlement agreement.
The court concluded that the evidentiary record raised a genuine issue requiring a trial, including questions regarding the assignment of rights and the parties’ conduct following the purported settlement.
Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.
