Jordan M. Cutler

The moving party sought leave to appeal an unreported order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court noted that the motion below was on consent and dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The plaintiff was severely injured after falling from a railway trestle on lands owned by Canadian National Railway (CN) while taking a short cut.

The plaintiff sued both CN and the City of Quinte West.

The City brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action against it.

The plaintiff argued the City was an occupier because it cut the grass on an adjacent parcel of land, and that it owed a duty to prevent access to the railway hazard.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the City's motion, finding that the City was not an occupier of the hazard location and that its maintenance of adjacent lands did not create the danger.

The court further held that the City owed no general duty of care to prevent pedestrians from accessing third-party railway lands.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision awarding interest on outstanding medical benefits from the date the applications or invoices were received.

The insurer argued that based on a negative Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) report, the benefits only became overdue when the arbitrator ordered them payable.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the initial obligation to pay medical benefits arises 30 days after receipt of an invoice or application, regardless of a negative DAC report.

The interest provisions under the Schedule are compensatory, not punitive, and a negative DAC report merely delays payment of interest rather than forfeiting it.

The child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child argued that the criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act had not been met.

The majority of the Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder, had caused or threatened serious bodily harm, and that the secure treatment program was necessary and appropriate.

The Board concluded that all criteria were met and denied the application for release.

A dissenting member would have released the child, finding insufficient evidence that appropriate treatment was available or that less restrictive methods were inappropriate.

The appellant was injured when the lower arm of a boom attached to a commercial vehicle failed while he was trimming trees.

The insurer denied statutory accident benefits, arguing the vehicle was being used as a tree-trimming device, not an automobile.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding that the attached boom and bucket were integrated into the use of the vehicle.

Because the insurer did not use an OPCF-30 endorsement to exclude coverage for attached machinery, the injury arose from the use or operation of an automobile, meeting the definition of an 'accident' under the Schedule.