Joseph Campisi

Following the allowance of the appeal, the Court of Appeal requested submissions on costs for the motion, which had not been addressed at the hearing.

The parties reached an agreement on costs.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the appellant $4,000 all-inclusive, in accordance with the parties' agreement.

The plaintiffs brought a constitutional challenge against provisions of the Insurance Act, alleging the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) lacked adjudicative independence.

They obtained a motion judge's order under Rule 30.10 requiring the LAT to produce hundreds of internal records.

The LAT appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in her application of Rule 30.10.

The records were not relevant to a material issue because adjudicative independence in a specific case does not impact the constitutional validity of the tribunal's jurisdiction under s. 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867, nor does it engage s. 7 or s. 15 of the Charter.

The Court also clarified that deliberative secrecy applies to administrative tribunals to the same extent as courts.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic brain injury in a 1997 motor vehicle accident, applied for retroactive attendant care benefits (ACBs) in 2021.

The respondent insurer denied the retroactive claim.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to retroactive ACBs for the period after his discharge from the hospital, as well as for two weekends spent at home during his hospital stay, because the services were reasonably necessary and quantifiable.

The Tribunal also held that interest on the overdue benefits began to accrue 10 business days after the 2021 application was submitted.

Finally, the Tribunal granted a special award of $42,000 under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding that the respondent unreasonably withheld benefits by failing to adequately inform the applicant of his potential entitlement to ACBs shortly after the accident.

The decision addresses a motion by the defendants (including His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario and several OPP officers) to strike portions of the plaintiffs’ Amended Amended Statement of Claim and Economical Insurance Group’s Defence and Crossclaim, under Rules 21 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court strikes certain paragraphs for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, particularly those alleging a private duty of care in negligent investigation by police officers to victims, but allows others to stand and grants leave to amend.

The court reviews the legal principles for striking pleadings and the scope of police officers’ duty of care, ultimately finding that a tenable claim may exist based on statutory duties.

The applicant appealed and sought judicial review of Licence Appeal Tribunal decisions dismissing her claims for income replacement benefits and medical expenses, and ordering the destruction of internal tribunal documents she submitted as evidence of institutional bias.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal and application, finding no error of law in the Tribunal's determination that the insurer's examination notices complied with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Court also upheld the Tribunal's orders striking the applicant's reply evidence and directing the destruction and non-dissemination of internal documents, concluding that the Tribunal reasonably exercised its jurisdiction to control its process and properly applied the doctrines of solicitor-client privilege and deliberative secrecy.

The appellant sought to rescind a 2000 settlement agreement for statutory accident benefits, arguing the insurer failed to comply with disclosure obligations under Regulation 664 by not providing a commuted value for Attendant Care Benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the rescission claim, finding the insurer was not required to provide a commuted value for benefits that were never claimed.

On appeal and judicial review, the Divisional Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, concluding it was not an error of law or unreasonable to find the settlement valid where the missing commuted value was for an unclaimed benefit and could not have reasonably affected the decision to settle.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming attendant care benefits (ACB) for services provided by her daughter and husband.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the services were 'incurred' under s. 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The evidence lacked sufficient detail regarding the daughter's hours and tasks, and failed to establish that either family member sustained an economic loss as a result of providing care.

Consequently, claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent argued the application was barred because the parties had executed a full-and-final settlement in November 2016.

The applicant contended he lacked the mental capacity to enter into the settlement agreement at that time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's contemporaneous academic records and cognitive test scores demonstrated he had the capacity to understand the agreement and instruct counsel.

The Tribunal held the settlement was valid and dismissed the application pursuant to s. 9.1(8) of Regulation 664.

The applicant sought to rescind a settlement agreement reached with the respondent insurer regarding statutory accident benefits arising from two 1996 motor vehicle accidents.

The applicant argued the settlement was invalid because the Settlement Disclosure Notice failed to include the commuted value of attendant care benefits, as required by s. 9.1 of Regulation 664.

The Tribunal found that res judicata did not apply from prior proceedings.

However, the Tribunal held the settlement was valid because the applicant had not claimed attendant care benefits at the time of settlement, making it impossible and unnecessary for the insurer to provide a commuted value for a benefit with a quantum of zero.

The application was dismissed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) moved for an order sealing part of the record in an underlying application for judicial review and preventing further dissemination of the documents.

The documents were found by an adjudicator to be covered by solicitor-client privilege and deliberative secrecy.

The applicant and the affiant opposed the motion.

The court granted the sealing order, finding that the criteria in Sherman Estate were met and that opening the documents to the public before the proceedings were decided would irreparably compromise the privilege and secrecy.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 6 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant relied on a revised assessment by an orthopedic surgeon, which incorporated a whole person impairment rating from a chiropractor.

The Tribunal found the chiropractor was not qualified to make a catastrophic impairment determination and gave little weight to the revised assessment.

Relying on the respondent's orthopedic assessment and surveillance evidence showing the applicant functioning without walking aids, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold.

The application was dismissed, and no award for unreasonable delay was granted.

The appellant/applicant sought to appeal and judicially review interlocutory decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding the striking out and destruction of certain evidence.

The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction, as there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory LAT decision.

The court also dismissed the application for judicial review regarding the evidentiary rulings due to prematurity, but permitted the judicial review to proceed regarding the orders requiring the destruction of documents.

Following the settlement of two personal injury actions arising from a motor vehicle accident, the parties could not agree on the quantum of costs and pre-judgment interest (PJI).

The plaintiffs sought over $163,000 in costs, while the defendants argued for a lower amount based on the settlement value of $375,000.

The court rejected the plaintiffs' extensive bill of costs, finding it disproportionate and offensive to the principle of indemnity given likely contingency fee arrangements.

The court fixed costs at $84,750 (inclusive of HST), representing 20% of the net recovery, and awarded $14,354.75 in PJI, representing half of the plaintiffs' claim, due to the impossibility of apportioning the all-inclusive settlement funds.

The applicant sought retroactive attendant care benefits (ACBs), housekeeping and home maintenance benefits (HKHM), chiropractic services, and occupational therapy services following a 1997 motor vehicle accident that resulted in a catastrophic impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove that the delay in submitting a retroactive Form 1 was due to urgency, impossibility, or impracticability, as required by the Morrissey decision.

The Tribunal also found no evidence that the ACB or HKHM expenses were actually incurred.

Furthermore, the requested chiropractic treatment and a one-year golf membership were deemed not reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence.

Claims for a section 10 award, interest, and costs were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, including attendant care, housekeeping, and the cost of assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant entitled to a reduced amount of attendant care benefits ($448.49 per month) for feeding, but denied claims for dressing, shaving, mobility, and other items.

The Tribunal also found the applicant entitled to housekeeping benefits, but only payable from September 2022 due to a lack of accounting for prior incurred expenses.

Claims for assessment costs, a special award, and costs were dismissed.

The Tribunal also dismissed a preliminary motion to state a case for contempt regarding the insurer's surveillance.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent.

The matter proceeded to a hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

At the start of the hearing, the parties advised that they had resolved the file on a full and final basis.

The Tribunal closed the file.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment designation due to a mental or behavioural disorder following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a Class 4 (Marked) impairment in three of the four domains under the AMA Guides.

The evidence indicated that many of the applicant's functional limitations, including social withdrawal and learning difficulties, pre-dated the accident.

As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and the non-catastrophic medical and rehabilitation limits were exhausted, the claims for treatment plans, a section 10 award, and interest were dismissed.

The respondent insurer sought an adjournment of the hearing because it had not completed its insurer examinations regarding the applicant's catastrophic impairment claim.

The adjudicator granted the adjournment orally, prompting the applicant to bring a motion for the adjudicator to recuse herself based on a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the recusal motion, finding no evidence of bias and noting that the adjournment was necessary to ensure procedural fairness, as the respondent would otherwise be unable to defend the case.

The hearing was adjourned for 120 days.

The applicant sought enhanced statutory accident benefits, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment from a motor vehicle accident.

He argued the accident caused or exacerbated conditions leading to a fall and seizure weeks later.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his present impairments, including a traumatic brain injury and psychological issues, were caused by the accident rather than his extensive pre-existing medical conditions, such as diabetic neuropathy and a history of syncope.

As the applicant did not meet the catastrophic impairment threshold and his standard policy limits were exhausted, all claims for medical, rehabilitation, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits were dismissed, along with claims for interest and a special award.

The plaintiff, a party under disability who suffered a traumatic brain injury after being struck by a car as a pedestrian, sought court approval of a proposed settlement in his tort and accident benefits claims.

The court reviewed the proposed contingency fee agreement and found it was not reasonable, reducing the fees to 25% for the tort action and 15% for the accident benefits claim.

The court also declined to order the settlement funds be paid as a lump sum, directing counsel to obtain structure options to protect the vulnerable plaintiff.