Joanna Cox

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought transportation expenses and a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 for unreasonable delay in paying income replacement benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the transportation expenses were not payable because the round trip was under 50 kilometres and the applicant was not catastrophically impaired.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a special award, finding that the insurer's denials were based on properly scheduled assessments and there was no evidence of unreasonable behaviour.

The defendant Anderson moved for summary judgment to dismiss the action and crossclaim against her, arguing the motor vehicle accident was solely caused by the co-defendant Yik.

The plaintiff Pagano opposed, seeking a ruling of at least 1% liability against Anderson or, alternatively, a trial to determine and apportion liability.

The court found conflicting evidence regarding the accident circumstances and drivers' actions, making it impossible to make necessary findings of fact or apply the law without a full evidentiary record and credibility assessments.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the action was ordered to proceed to trial.

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

At the arbitration hearing, the applicant failed to appear.

Her legal representatives brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, having lost contact with the applicant.

The arbitrator granted the motion to remove the representatives.

As the applicant failed to appear or present any evidence to support her claims, the application for arbitration was dismissed.

The insurer was awarded $750 in expenses.

The appellant insurer was successful on an appeal regarding a special award and sought its legal expenses of the appeal.

The appellant claimed approximately $8,260 in expenses.

The respondent opposed the award, arguing the amounts were excessive and that the issue should be left to the hearing arbitrator.

The Director's Delegate rejected the respondent's argument, finding that the appeal expenses must be decided by the appeal decision-maker.

Considering the relative simplicity of the matter and the appellant's success, the Director's Delegate fixed the appellant's expenses at $3,000.

Following a finding that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, the parties disputed the quantum of arbitration expenses.

The applicant claimed $99,184.04, including a premium for beating an offer to settle.

The arbitrator rejected the claim for a premium, finding no jurisdiction to award it.

Applying a 4:1 ratio for preparation to hearing time, the arbitrator assessed reasonable legal fees and disbursements, ultimately awarding the applicant $28,890.86 inclusive of HST.

The appellant insurer sought to appeal an arbitrator's decision finding the respondent catastrophically impaired and an order denying production of the respondent's husband's accident benefits file.

The appellant also sought a stay of the arbitrator's orders pending the appeal.

The Director's Delegate accepted the appeal on consent but denied the request for a stay, finding that the appellant failed to establish the criteria for a stay, noting that a stay of an arbitration order is the exception rather than the rule.

The parties sought their legal expenses following an appeal of an arbitration pre-hearing decision that ordered the appellant to produce photographs from her Facebook profile.

The Director's Delegate considered the criteria under the Expense Regulation, noting the novelty of Facebook production issues at the appeal level and the appellant's initial failure to comply with an order to preserve the Facebook pages.

Balancing the relative merits of success and novelty, the Delegate ordered that each party bear their own legal expenses for the appeal.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's pre-hearing order requiring her to produce all photographs from her private Facebook profile.

The Director's Delegate found that the arbitrator erred in law by applying the 'semblance of relevance' test, holding that the correct test under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code is 'relevance and reasonableness'.

The Delegate also held that private Facebook photographs are not a prima facie producible class of documents.

However, because the appellant's public Hi5 account contained photographs of her ziplining, which were relevant to her claimed inability to perform certain activities, the Delegate concluded that the private Facebook photographs were relevant and reasonably necessary in this specific case.

The appeal was dismissed and the production order was confirmed.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order transferring the defamation action from Toronto to Hamilton.

The plaintiff argued that extensive media coverage in Hamilton regarding his previous murder charge and its withdrawal created a reasonable apprehension of bias, preventing a fair jury trial.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the Master erred in law by failing to properly address the reasonable apprehension of bias and by expressing inappropriate personal views regarding a perceived duty to the child of a murdered barrister, which amounted to a denial of a fair hearing.

The appellant appealed a Master's order transferring the defamation action and place of trial from Toronto to Hamilton.

The defamation claim arose from media reports following the withdrawal of murder charges against the appellant in Hamilton.

The appellant argued he could not get a fair jury trial in Hamilton due to extensive prejudicial publicity.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the Master erred in law by failing to properly address whether the appellant had a reasonable apprehension of bias in Hamilton.

The court also found the Master's inclusion of irrelevant personal views regarding the murdered parents of the responding party amounted to an effective denial of a fair hearing.

The appellant appealed a preliminary arbitration order requiring her to produce photographs from her Facebook account in a statutory accident benefits dispute.

The respondent argued the appeal should be rejected as premature.

The Director's Delegate declined to reject the appeal, noting the novelty and increasing importance of social media production issues at the Commission.

The request for a stay of the arbitrator's order was deferred pending confirmation that the Facebook evidence had been preserved, and the appellant was ordered to copy and preserve the relevant Facebook pages in the interim.

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

After failing to comply with production orders and terminating her legal counsel, the applicant failed to appear at the resumed pre-hearing and the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claims as she failed to meet her burden of proof.

The insurer abandoned its claim for repayment of benefits without prejudice.

No expenses were awarded.

The appellant insurer and respondent insured both sought their legal expenses following an appeal regarding the termination of statutory accident benefits.

The Director's Delegate had previously varied the arbitrator's decision by making the benefits order interim pending a final hearing.

Applying the criteria under section 12(2) of O. Reg. 664, the Delegate found that given the mixed success on appeal, the novelty of the legal issue, and the technicality of the question, it was appropriate for each party to bear its own legal expenses.

The insurer brought a preliminary motion seeking an order to compel the applicant to produce her entire post-accident employment file.

The applicant had applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but did not claim income replacement benefits, having returned to work three days after the accident.

The insurer argued the employment file was relevant to assessing her disability from activities of daily living.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the request failed to meet the tests of relevance and reasonableness, as no income replacement benefits were claimed and there was already adequate medical documentation to address the entitlement questions.

The applicant sought production of the insurer's entire file up to the date of the arbitration.

The insurer claimed litigation privilege over its file from the date of the Application for Mediation.

The arbitrator held that litigation privilege attached to the insurer's file on the day the insurer received FSCO's letter notifying it of the Application for Mediation, as that is when litigation was reasonably anticipated.

The insurer was ordered to produce its file up to that date, subject to any claims for privilege and redaction of reserve information.

Following an arbitration decision regarding statutory accident benefits, both the applicant and the insurer claimed their arbitration expenses under subsection 282(11) of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator denied both claims.

The insurer was largely successful but failed to make any settlement offer, which undercut the conciliatory nature of the process.

The applicant had a comparatively small degree of success and made an inflated settlement offer that did not encourage an amicable resolution.

Consequently, neither party was awarded expenses.

Following a decision on statutory accident benefits where the insurer was found entitled to its reasonable expenses, the parties disagreed on the quantum of the insurer's Bill of Costs.

The insurer sought $6,867.08 in legal fees based on 110.7 hours of preparation and hearing time, plus disbursements.

The arbitrator found the hours excessive for a straightforward two-day hearing involving no complex legal issues.

Applying a 1.25:1 ratio for preparation to hearing time, the arbitrator reduced the legal fees and struck unsupported disbursements for courier, parking, and court reporting services.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer $4,861.18 in expenses.