Jeremy Hanigan

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 Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a chronic pain diagnosis or a pre-existing condition that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as evidenced by surveillance and medical reports.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

Following their successful defence against a motion to add them as third parties, the Proposed Defendants sought partial indemnity costs.

The moving party, Security National, argued the Proposed Defendants were merely intervenors and not entitled to costs.

The court found that the Proposed Defendants had standing and, even if considered intervenors, met the exception to the general rule against awarding costs to intervenors due to their significant interests and necessary participation.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $5,328 to People on Bikes and Gord Townley, and $2,667 to His Majesty the King.

This is an appeal from an order dismissing a motion to set aside a noting in default.

The appellants (defendants in the original action) had repeatedly delayed filing a defence, despite extensions and changes in counsel.

The motion judge applied the principles for setting aside a noting in default, considering the full context, including the parties' behaviour and reasons for delay.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's comprehensive analysis and dismissed the appeal, affirming that the plaintiff was entitled to proceed given the defendants' prolonged non-compliance.

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

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding for failing to attend an insurer's examination.

The Tribunal found the notice of examination was deficient and allowed the application to proceed.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal held that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline, as she failed to prove a chronic pain condition.

The claim for an income replacement benefit was dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence.