Joseph Campisi

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order from the Tribunal to state a case to the Divisional Court for a contempt hearing, alleging that the respondent's counsel interfered with a summonsed witness and violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's counsel's conduct, while uncooperative, did not establish a prima facie case for contempt of court.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an order to refer the matter to the Divisional Court for a contempt hearing after the respondent's occupational therapist failed to attend the hearing despite being served with a summons.

The respondent took no position.

The adjudicator found that the witness was properly served and failed to attend without providing reasons.

Given the importance of the witness's evidence to the catastrophic impairment determination, the motion was granted and the matter was referred to the Divisional Court.

The applicant, injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought interim benefits pending a hearing on whether he was catastrophically impaired.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to award interim benefits under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the Legislature deliberately removed provisions relating to interim orders from the Insurance Act and that no regulation currently grants the Tribunal jurisdiction to order interim benefits.

The applicant in a statutory accident benefits dispute brought a motion during the hearing to call two additional witnesses and to enter new documentary evidence.

The respondent opposed the addition of the witnesses but consented to the documentary evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to add the witnesses, finding it would violate a prior disclosure order and cause unjustified delay, noting the evidence could be partially deduced from the admitted documents.

The request to enter the new documentary evidence was granted on consent.

The moving party, an insurance company, brought a motion for leave to appeal the unreported decisions of the motion judge dated January 4, 2021, and January 21, 2021.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal without costs.

The parties were directed to contact the court to schedule a case conference.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs).

She later returned to work part-time.

The parties disputed the correct method for calculating the IRB deduction for her post-accident part-time income.

The applicant argued for an 'Equitable Approach' where her income would be prorated based on the hours she was unable to work.

The insurer argued that under section 7(3) of the Schedule, 70% of her gross weekly employment income should be deducted from her IRB entitlement.

The arbitrator agreed with the insurer, finding that the law requires the deduction to be based on the weekly income earned, not on a percentage of working versus non-working hours.

The Applicant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $75,461.75 in attendant care benefits for services provided by his daughter, a child and youth worker.

The Insurer denied the claim.

The Arbitrator found that the daughter did not sustain an economic loss, her employment as a child and youth worker was not analogous to providing attendant care to her father, there was no legal obligation to pay her, and the services were not reasonable and necessary given the availability of other family members.

The claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed.

During a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendant moved for a determination that the plaintiff’s claim for non‑pecuniary damages was barred under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court considered whether the plaintiff sustained a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical function, the statutory threshold required to recover such damages.

After reviewing medical evidence, credibility findings, and the plaintiff’s post‑accident activities, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not establish a permanent impairment and, in any event, any impairment was neither important nor serious.

The judge also noted the modest jury award for pain and suffering as consistent with the evidentiary record.

The plaintiff was therefore barred from recovering non‑pecuniary damages.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate's decision finding that the respondent suffered a catastrophic impairment under s. 2(1.1)(g) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the decision, holding that the Delegate erred in law by concluding that a marked impairment in only one of four areas of functioning was sufficient for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The Court further held that the Delegate erred by failing to exclude pain associated with physical injuries when assessing impairment due to mental or behavioural disorder, as required by the AMA Guides incorporated into the legislation.