Jillian Kristine Beaulieu

The defendants and third parties brought motions to dismiss three related actions for delay, citing the plaintiffs' prolonged inaction over several years.

The plaintiffs brought a cross-motion for a status hearing and leave to amend their statement of claim.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the significant delay and did not rebut the presumption of non-compensable prejudice to the defendants, particularly due to the death of a key witness.

Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all actions for delay and dismissed the plaintiffs' cross-motion.

The appellant appealed an order refusing to set aside a registrar's order dismissing her action as abandoned due to delay.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred by overlooking strong evidence that the respondents suffered no actual prejudice from the litigation delay or the delay in bringing the set-aside motion.

The respondents' conduct, including requesting a waiver of defence and later serving a statement of defence, belied their claims of prejudice.

The court emphasized that the absence of prejudice and the importance of deciding cases on their merits should take precedence.

The appeal was allowed, and the dismissal orders were set aside.

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident and commenced an action against the driver and owner, which was administratively dismissed for delay.

The plaintiff later commenced a second action against the lessee of the vehicle.

The lessee moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff moved to set aside the administrative dismissal of the first action.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, finding the lessee's identity was not reasonably discoverable until the plaintiff received correspondence from the insurer.

However, the court also dismissed the plaintiff's motion to set aside the administrative dismissal, finding an inordinate and unexplained delay that prejudiced the defendants.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and a psychological impairment that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's self-reported symptoms inconsistent and preferred the evidence of the insurer's examiners.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, and the disputed treatment plans for chronic pain, psychological, and driving anxiety assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

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

The respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment and requested the applicant attend three independent medical examinations (IEs) under s. 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant failed to attend the IEs, citing she was out of the country, but did not provide this explanation to the insurer.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding with her application under s. 55 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the insurer's request for IEs was reasonable and compliant with the Schedule, and the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her non-attendance.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The plaintiffs sought costs of a motion on a substantial or partial indemnity basis.

The defendants argued that no costs should be awarded due to divided success.

The court noted that relief was consented to, some relief was withdrawn, and success was divided on the contested relief.

The court found no conduct warranting substantial indemnity costs and ordered that the parties bear their own costs.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of an adjudicator's decision denying a request to adjourn a hearing.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request, noting that under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Common Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Because the proceeding was ongoing, the request was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to exceed the seven-hour limit for examination for discovery of the defendants' representative and an order allowing them to move without notice to strike the statement of defence for non-compliance with undertakings.

The court granted leave for an additional four hours of examination, exceeding the seven-hour limit by 2.4 hours, citing the voluminous additional productions and numerous undertakings.

However, the court denied the request to move without notice to strike the defence, emphasizing that striking a defence is an extreme remedy and defendants should have notice and an opportunity to respond to such a motion.

This appeal concerns an arbitrator's decision regarding sanctions for an insurer's improper deflection of a statutory accident benefits (SABs) claim and failure to provide timely notice of dispute.

The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (MVACF) appealed the arbitrator's decision to impose only costs sanctions on TD Insurance, arguing that TD should be permanently liable for the SABs due to its conduct.

The court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding it reasonable and within jurisdiction, as existing appellate authority supports that a breach of the "Disputes Between Insurers" regulation does not automatically result in permanent liability, especially when another insurer initiated the dispute process within the required timeframe.