3 total
The court granted the defendants' motion to transfer the trial venue from Barrie to Toronto.
The defendants, Turgut Askar and Beck Taxi Ltd., brought a motion to change the trial venue from Barrie to Toronto.
The plaintiff, Leela Rampersad, opposed the motion.
The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that Toronto was a "substantially better" venue given the location of the motor vehicle accident, the residences of the parties and most potential witnesses, and the plaintiff's connections to Toronto for employment and medical treatment.
The only connection to Barrie was the location of the plaintiff's counsel.
Appeal dismissed; 'car surfing' constitutes an accident for the purpose of statutory accident benefits.
The appellant insurer appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal finding that the respondent was involved in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The respondent was injured while 'car surfing' on the rear bumper of a moving vehicle.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the adjudicator's application of the purpose test.
The court found that while reckless, the vehicle was being used for its normal purpose of transportation, and thus the incident constituted an accident.
Applicant's chronic pain removed him from the Minor Injury Guideline; certain medical and rehabilitation benefits granted.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer.
The insurer denied several treatment plans and assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit of $3,500.
The applicant argued his injuries had developed into chronic pain, taking him outside the MIG.
The arbitrator found the applicant provided compelling evidence of chronic pain, removing him from the MIG.
The arbitrator granted the claims for a functional abilities evaluation, chiropractic treatment, and certain assistive devices, finding them reasonable and necessary.
Claims for a social-emotional assessment and additional assistive devices were denied.
The arbitrator awarded interest on the overdue benefits but denied the applicant's request for a special award, finding the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.