Jonathan Tatner

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 59.06 to vary, set aside, or suspend a previous costs order.

The plaintiff argued that the court failed to adjudicate material costs considerations and that fresh evidence warranted a redetermination.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no accidental slip or omission under Rule 59.06(1), and holding that the fresh evidence would not have changed the result and could have been obtained earlier under Rule 59.06(2)(a).

The court also declined to suspend the order, noting the plaintiff's unreasonable conduct and the prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiffs, Lee Anthony Delfino and Standing O Entertainment Group Inc., sued the Intercounty Baseball League and its commissioner, John Kastner, for breach of contract and negligence after their team, the Brantford Red Sox, was eliminated from the 2016 playoffs.

The claim arose from the commissioner’s decision to allow a Toronto Maple Leafs player, Mike Wagner, to participate in the playoffs despite allegations he was ineligible under league rules.

The court found that the league’s governance documents delegated final authority on eligibility to the commissioner, and that his decision was made in good faith and within his discretion.

The court dismissed the claim, holding that there was no breach of contract or negligence, and that the process followed was procedurally fair.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment that awarded zero net damages following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by excluding her proposed medical expert, a neurologist, and by refusing to leave the issues of loss of competitive advantage and medical expenses to the jury.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's exercise of her gatekeeper function to exclude the expert for lacking objectivity, nor in her conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to put the disputed damages questions to the jury.

The plaintiffs sought compensation for injuries sustained by Sandra Bernier during a cycling event.

The defendants and third party brought summary judgment motions, arguing the action was barred by a signed waiver and voluntary assumption of risk.

The court found the waiver enforceable against the plaintiff, including her children's claims under the Family Law Act, and that it covered the alleged negligence, including negligent organization and road maintenance.

The court also found the plaintiff voluntarily assumed the risk.

The summary judgment motions were granted, and the action was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking to discontinue the action against several defendants, amend the statement of claim to identify the defendant Clarke as both operator and owner of the vehicle, and extend/validate service on Clarke.

The court dismissed the motion to extend time and validate service on Clarke, finding the plaintiff's explanations for the significant delay (inaccurate MTO search, firm staffing issues, and COVID-19) insufficient.

The court noted the prejudice to the defendant due to the inability to conduct a prompt investigation.

The order to discontinue against the other named defendants was granted.

The applicant sought entitlement to two treatment plans for chiropractic services and interest under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans based on an insurer's examination which concluded the applicant sustained only uncomplicated soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's medical evidence over the applicant's chronic pain assessment, which relied heavily on subjective reporting.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs due to late disclosure was denied.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been reached.

The applicant argued that mild degenerative disc disease, psychological impairments, chronic pain, chronic headaches, and a sleeping disorder removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor, his chronic pain and headaches were sequelae of soft tissue injuries, and there was insufficient evidence of a psychological diagnosis or pre-existing condition to warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the remaining MIG balance of $835.77 to be applied to a reasonable and necessary chiropractic treatment plan, but otherwise dismissed the claims for further benefits, an award, and interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer determined her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied further benefits.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing she suffered from chronic pain and neurological issues warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish her injuries were more than minor soft tissue injuries.

As the applicant had exhausted the $3,500 funding limit under the MIG, the claims for further medical benefits and examination costs were dismissed.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an award under Ontario Regulation 664, finding no evidence the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payments.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that precluded her from proceeding to a hearing on pre-104 income replacement benefits (IRBs) due to her failure to attend insurer's examinations.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact, and that new evidence regarding her compliance with post-104 IRB examinations warranted reconsideration.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no specific errors of law or fact in the original decision.

The Tribunal also held that the new information would not have affected the outcome, as the original decision only pertained to pre-104 IRBs.

The respondent's request for costs was denied, as the applicant's conduct was not frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated the benefits and subsequently requested neurological and psychological insurer's examinations after receiving new medical information from the appellant.

The appellant deliberately refused to attend the examinations, arguing they were unnecessary and unreasonable.

The Tribunal applied the Al-Shimasawi factors and found the insurer's requests were reasonably necessary.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was barred under section 55(1)2 of the Schedule from proceeding with her appeal regarding the income replacement benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) until they were terminated by the insurer.

The applicant filed an application for dispute resolution with the Licence Appeal Tribunal seven business days after the expiry of the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, and granted an extension of time, finding that the delay was minimal, there was no prejudice to the insurer, and the appeal had merit.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $2,200 for psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit of $3,500, which had already been largely exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and that the psychological evidence provided was insufficient to remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for benefits and interest, and also denied the respondent's request for costs, finding no bad faith on the part of the applicant.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that permitted the applicant's appeal for income replacement benefits to proceed despite being filed six days after the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal had applied section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the time.

On reconsideration, the Vice-Chair found no error of law or fact in the original decision, confirming that section 7 of the LAT Act prevails over the mandatory limitation period in section 56 of the SABS, and that the Tribunal properly applied the four-factor test for extending time.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

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

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she sustained psychological injuries that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the insurer's psychological assessment more persuasive, noting the applicant's own statements contradicted her claimed psychological impairments.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were minor and governed by the MIG, dismissing her appeal and denying her claim for an award.

The insurer's request for costs was also denied.

The applicant, who was a minor at the time of the motor vehicle accident, sought a non-earner benefit and medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The respondent argued the claim for the non-earner benefit was statute-barred under the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period was suspended under s. 6 of the Limitations Act because the applicant was a minor and her mother's assistance in applying for benefits did not make her a litigation guardian.

However, on the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies in her self-reporting and preferring the respondent's insurer examinations.

The Tribunal also concluded the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG, as there was insufficient evidence of psychological impairment or chronic pain to warrant removal.

All claims for benefits and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and attendant care benefits (ACBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility, having concealed her return to work and regular gym attendance from assessors.

Relying on objective medical imaging and the respondent's experts, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a dental assistant.

The claim for ACBs was dismissed because the expenses were not incurred as defined in the Schedule.

The respondent was awarded repayment of $2,984.59 for IRBs paid while the applicant was working.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied.

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

The applicant's legal representative was previously removed from the record due to an inability to contact the applicant.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator proceeded in the applicant's absence and dismissed the application for arbitration, finding that continuing the proceeding would be an abuse of process.

The insurer was awarded $500.00 in expenses for having to prepare for and attend the proceedings.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After failing to resolve disputes through mediation, the applicant applied for arbitration.

However, the applicant failed to appear at the pre-hearing and the hearing, and his counsel was removed from the record due to an inability to locate him.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration due to the applicant's failure to pursue it.