Justin Paolo Cortes Lim

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that a TTC bus driving over a raised manhole cover at excessive speed constituted a 'collision' with 'any other object' under s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act.

The respondent argued the adjudicator erred in law and fact by misinterpreting legislative intent, misapplying case law, and relying on tort law considerations.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact that would have led to a different result, and affirmed that the forceful impact caused by the bus's speed transformed the interaction into a collision.

The plaintiff brought a negligence action for injuries from an automobile accident, with liability admitted by the defendants.

The trial proceeded on damages only before a jury.

The court addressed a dispute between counsel regarding the wording of jury questions.

The defendants proposed questions that included a causation question despite admitted liability, and sought to particularize damages by apportioning them between the initial accident and subsequent accidents.

The court rejected the defendants' proposed questions, finding them to contain embedded assumptions, to be overly complicated, and to risk confusion.

The court affirmed that admitted liability includes causation, making a separate causation question unnecessary.

It also reiterated principles against apportionment between tortious and non-tortious causes for indivisible injuries, and the general rule against requiring juries to provide reasons or particularize findings, especially for damages assessment.

The plaintiff's simpler, general damages questions were adopted.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding his application for Non-Earner Benefits statute-barred due to an expired limitation period.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its findings regarding the respondent's duty to re-adjust the file when he reached the age of majority, its reliance on early medical records, and its conclusion that three valid denials triggered the limitation period.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact that would have led to a different result, noting the preliminary hearing focused solely on the limitation period and formal documentation rather than the substantive merits of the claim.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing his $2,000,000 copyright infringement action against the respondent transit commission.

The appellant claimed copyright over transit route maps based on an unpublished U.S. copyright registration.

The Court of Appeal rejected the respondent's preliminary objection that the appeal belonged in the Divisional Court, noting the claim amount exceeded $50,000.

The Court upheld the motion judge's findings that there was no originality in the appellant's maps and no evidence the respondent used them, dismissing the appeal.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a 2000 transit accident when he was a minor.

The insurer denied the claim in 2001, 2010, and 2017.

The applicant filed an application with the Tribunal in 2020.

The Tribunal held that the application was statute-barred under s. 51 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule because it was not commenced within two years of a valid denial.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, noting the significant delay and prejudice to the insurer.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Pollak J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were ordered as the parties had reached an agreement on costs.

Oscar Sun, a minor, suffered catastrophic injuries after being hit by a car driven by Sergio Ferreira after exiting a TTC bus.

The plaintiffs (Sun, Chen, Sun) sued Ferreira, TTC, and the City of Toronto.

Ferreira also brought a third-party claim against TTC and the City.

The City, TTC, and Donald Carter brought two motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' action against them and Ferreira's third-party claim, arguing the claims were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court dismissed both motions, finding a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the discoverability of the claims and whether it was appropriate to commence legal action earlier, particularly concerning the alleged negligent design of the bus stop and crosswalks.

The court also noted concerns about partial summary judgment.

The applicant was struck by a bus and sought statutory accident benefits from the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the applicant's claims for non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits, finding she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and failed to prove her mother sustained an economic loss.

However, the Tribunal approved treatment plans for physiotherapy and chiropractic care as reasonable and necessary to treat ongoing pain.

The Tribunal also ordered the TTC to pay a $1,000 award under O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer breached its duty of good faith by unreasonably delaying benefits and failing to maintain transparent internal records.

The applicant, a personal support worker, was injured while riding as a passenger on a bus that was struck by a car.

She sought income replacement benefits (IRBs), medical benefits, and attendant care benefits (ACBs) after the insurer terminated them.

The arbitrator found the applicant was entitled to IRBs for both the pre-104 week and post-104 week periods, as well as the disputed medical benefits, but denied the claim for ongoing ACBs.

The arbitrator also ordered the insurer to pay a $6,500 special award for unreasonably terminating the applicant's IRBs despite objective medical evidence of a severe knee condition.

In a preliminary ruling, the arbitrator removed the insurer's in-house legal department as representatives of record due to a disqualifying conflict of interest, finding that the mandatory firewall between the insurer's accident benefits and tort files had been breached.