Jordan Bronte Robertson Palmer

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Kenneth Reed's appeal from a summary judgment in favour of the Bank of Nova Scotia regarding two lines of credit for his farming operation.

The court found that summary judgment was appropriate, the Consumer Protection Act did not apply as Reed was not a consumer, and a stay under the Farm Debt Mediation Act did not apply to the appeal itself but did stay enforcement of the judgment pending mediation.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded to the Bank.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate quantum of costs following a motor vehicle accident trial in which the plaintiff was awarded damages by the jury, but the award was reduced to zero by operation of the Insurance Act.

The defendant sought $269,264.87 in costs, later reducing the request to $230,000.

The plaintiff argued for a much lower award, citing financial hardship and litigation conduct.

The court fixed costs at $185,000, finding the defendant entitled to costs but reducing the amount for duplication, lack of particulars, and proportionality.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for optometric services, an eye assessment, and speech language pathology following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant had not proven they were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support the ongoing need for the proposed treatments years after the accident, noting her high level of functioning and lack of recent complaints in clinical records.

The application was dismissed.

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

The insurer requested an Election of Benefits form (OCF-10) because the applicant's Disability Certificate (OCF-3) indicated she met the tests for both income replacement benefits and non-earner benefits.

The applicant failed to submit the OCF-10, arguing there was no ambiguity since she was employed at the time of the accident.

The Tribunal found that the OCF-3 created ambiguity requiring an election under section 35(1) of the Schedule.

As the applicant failed to comply with the mandatory requirement to submit the OCF-10, she was barred from proceeding with her claim for income replacement benefits, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found she was subject to the 2016 Schedule's catastrophic impairment definition and barred from disputing income replacement benefits.

The respondent argued the request was premature.

The adjudicator agreed and dismissed the request, noting that under Cura v. Aviva Insurance Canada, a request for reconsideration is only permitted on a decision that finally disposes of an appeal.

Since the applicant's appeal remained live with several issues pending for a substantive hearing, the reconsideration request was premature.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The tribunal held a preliminary issue hearing to determine which version of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule applied to the applicant's transitional policy, and whether her claims were statute-barred.

The adjudicator found that the 2016 Schedule's definition of catastrophic impairment applied.

Applying section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, the adjudicator declined to extend the limitation period for the applicant's income replacement benefits claim due to incurable prejudice to the insurer, but extended the limitation period for her medical and rehabilitation benefits claims.

The court awarded full indemnity costs against the plaintiffs after dismissing their claims, which were found to be statute-barred, subject to res judicata and issue estoppel, abuses of process, and collateral attacks.

The claims were deemed devoid of merit and repetitive of earlier unsuccessful actions.

The court emphasized that the claims should never have been brought, especially for a third time, and that the plaintiffs' conduct, including unsubstantiated allegations, delaying tactics, and unrealistic settlement offers, warranted the highest scale of costs.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her action for damages, including assault, against the respondent, which was barred by the two-year limitation period.

The appellant argued that her claim was not discovered earlier due to fear (s. 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act, 2002) or that it fell under the exception for assault in an intimate relationship (s. 16(1)(h.2)(i)).

The motion judge found no evidence of "assault" meeting the "imminent" contact standard and deemed the fear evidence unpersuasive.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, affirming the strict definition of assault requiring "imminent" harm, consistent with its prior ruling in Barker v. Barker.

A case conference was held to address the scheduling of several outstanding motions after the plaintiffs dismissed their counsel.

The court rescheduled the motions to the week of November 7, 2022, to be heard virtually.

The hearing of the motions was marked peremptory against the plaintiffs and their corporate entities, giving them time to retain new counsel without further delaying the proceedings.

A case conference was held to address multiple related actions.

On consent, the claims against Shahzad Siddiqui and Borden Ladner Gervais LLP were dismissed with prejudice and without costs.

The court directed counsel to confer regarding the potential release of individual defendants and established a timetable for scheduling upcoming dispositive motions.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including chiropractic services and lost educational expenses.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), and sought repayment of an overpaid income replacement benefit (IRB).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ongoing neck and back pain, supported by clinical records and the respondent's own assessments, took his injuries outside the MIG.

The Tribunal approved the treatment plan for chiropractic services as reasonable and necessary.

However, the claim for lost educational expenses was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove he was unable to continue his automotive training program as a result of the accident.

The Tribunal also ordered the applicant to repay $2,800 in overpaid IRBs, as he had returned to work during the period in question.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action for damages arising from an alleged campaign of harassment following the end of their romantic relationship.

The plaintiff argued her claim was saved from the basic two-year limitation period by section 16(1)(h.2)(i) of the Limitations Act, which removes the limitation period for assault if the parties had an intimate relationship.

The court found the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she had reasonable grounds to fear imminent harmful or offensive contact.

As the plaintiff's claim was statute-barred, the court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action.

The applicant sought a medical benefit for physiotherapy in the amount of $1,899.96 following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant reported only short-term relief from previous treatment.

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

The applicant sought attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits and scheduled insurer's examinations (IEs), which the applicant failed to attend.

The applicant appealed to the Tribunal more than two years after the initial denial.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with the attendant care benefits claim because the appeal was filed outside the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule, and declined to extend the time under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the applicant was statute-barred under s. 55 from proceeding with several other benefit claims due to his unjustified failure to attend properly scheduled s. 44 IEs.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including medical benefits and Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs).

The insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), and stopped IRBs based on insurer examinations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's median nerve neuropathy removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved one treatment plan for physiotherapy and braces but denied others for lack of supporting evidence.

The Tribunal also ordered the reinstatement of IRBs up to the two-year anniversary of the accident, finding the applicant was substantially unable to perform his pre-accident employment as a warehouse worker and driver, and awarded interest on overdue payments.

The applicant was injured when she fell on a city bus that accelerated before she could sit down.

The bus did not collide with anything.

The respondent denied her claim for statutory accident benefits based on the 'no crash, no claim' exception in s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act.

The applicant argued that because she was attempting to use priority seating, she fell under the exemption for 'special transportation facilities for persons with disabilities' in s. 224(1).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that priority seating is not a special transportation facility and the applicant was not receiving a special service.

Therefore, the 'no crash, no claim' exception applied.

The plaintiff commenced a Small Claims Court action for breach of contract and later issued a Superior Court claim for defamation.

The plaintiff brought a motion to transfer the Small Claims action to the Superior Court to be consolidated, which the defendants consented to.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The defendants sought costs thrown away for work done in the Small Claims action.

The court found the work was not wasted and deferred the issue of costs to the trial judge.

A lawyer brought an application for an interim injunction to restrain a hospital from withdrawing life support from her client without instructions to do so and without notice to the client's family.

The application was granted ex parte but subsequently set aside by the reviewing judge after the client was declared brain dead.

The lawyer then appealed both the substantive decision and the costs award against her personally.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both appeals, finding that the lawyer had no authority to bring the application, acted without instructions, and seriously interfered with the administration of justice by misusing the court process during an emotionally sensitive family decision regarding end-of-life care.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a non-earner benefit.

A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine whether section 12(5) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which applies age distinctions to non-earner benefits, is insulated from review under the Human Rights Code.

The arbitrator applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation and found that the Legislature intended the age distinctions in sections 8 and 9 to apply to non-earner benefits under section 12(5).

Furthermore, section 22 of the Human Rights Code protects age discrimination in automobile insurance contracts.

The arbitrator concluded that section 12(5) is insulated from review under the Human Rights Code and ordered the parties to bear their own expenses.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim for Statutory Accident Benefits (SAB) on the ground that the limitation period had expired.

The respondent insurer issued an OCF-9 denying benefits in January 2007, and the claim was not commenced until approximately six years later.

The court upheld the summary judgment, finding that the denial of benefits was unequivocal and sufficient to trigger the running of the limitation period, even if the reasons provided were legally incorrect.

The court also rejected the appellant's submission that she was denied a fair hearing.