John Choe

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a preliminary decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal that extended the limitation period for the respondent's claim for attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application as premature, finding that the insurer must first proceed to the main hearing on the merits and, if unsuccessful, pursue a reconsideration and subsequent appeal.

The court held that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify fragmenting the administrative proceedings and reviewing the interim decision.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits beyond the 104-week mark, which the insurer denied.

The applicant filed an appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal more than two years after the denial, missing the limitation period under s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

However, the Tribunal granted an extension of time under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, finding that the applicant had a bona fide intention to appeal and was reasonably confused by the insurer's subsequent correspondence and failure to clarify that the limitation period was not on hold pending catastrophic impairment assessments.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to pay the balance of a landscaping contract.

They argued the trial judge prejudged the case and improperly excluded the appellant husband from the courtroom during the plaintiff's evidence.

The Divisional Court found that the trial judge's preliminary comments raised a realistic concern of bias and that excluding a party without a request from opposing counsel violated Rule 52.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Concluding that these errors created an appearance of unfairness and a miscarriage of justice, the court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to pay the final installment for a patio construction contract.

They argued the trial judge prejudged the case and erred by excluding the appellant husband from the courtroom during the respondent's testimony.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's preliminary comments and the arbitrary exclusion of a party in violation of Rule 52.06 created an appearance of unfairness.

A new trial was ordered.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing despite being served with notice.

The arbitrator proceeded in the applicant's absence and dismissed the application for arbitration because the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving entitlement to the claimed benefits.

The insurer was awarded $2,500 in expenses.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant failed to comply with production orders and did not attend the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator drew an adverse inference from the failure to produce documents and dismissed the claims for income replacement benefits, interest, and expenses, as the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof.