Kalin Ivanov Stoykov

Following a successful trial in a slip and fall action, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, relying on an offer to settle and the defendant's conduct.

The court found the offer to settle was served six days before trial, missing the mandatory seven-day requirement under Rule 49.10, and thus did not trigger substantial indemnity costs.

The court also found the self-represented corporate defendant's conduct was not abusive or reprehensible.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $170,000 in fees plus disbursements and HST, along with prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff, a 61-year-old tenant, tripped and fell on a wooden post protruding from the ground in a poorly lit grassy area at the back of her apartment building.

She sustained a severe fracture to her right arm requiring two surgeries and resulting in permanent impairment.

The court found the defendant landlord liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for failing to maintain the premises and ensure reasonable safety.

The plaintiff was awarded $236,626.36 in total damages, including $150,000 for general damages, despite her pre-existing medical conditions.

The plaintiff's action for damages from a motor vehicle accident was dismissed after a jury award for lost income and general damages was netted to zero due to deductions for income replacement benefits and the statutory deductible.

The defendants, being wholly successful, sought partial indemnity costs of $160,000.

The plaintiff argued costs should be limited to her $100,000 adverse costs insurance policy and that the defendant's settlement offers were unreasonable.

The court found adverse costs insurance irrelevant and the defendant's settlement offers reasonable, fixing costs at $160,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable by the plaintiff.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment and a psychological assessment following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the treatment and assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish causation on a balance of probabilities, noting that contemporaneous medical records did not link her knee, back, and chest pain to the accident, but rather to subsequent intervening incidents including a fall at home, a boating incident, and a trip and fall.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to chiropractic treatment plans and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact and law regarding the medical evidence of causation, the severity of a subsequent accident, and the refusal to extend a limitation period for a denied treatment plan.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no significant errors of law or fact that would have likely resulted in a different decision.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and that a subsequent accident caused the chronic pain.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding one treatment plan was statute-barred as it was appealed beyond the two-year limitation period without justification for an extension.

The Tribunal further held the remaining chiropractic plans were not reasonable and necessary, as previous similar treatments had been ineffective and the applicant failed to prove his impairments extended beyond minor soft tissue injuries.

Finally, the request for a chronic pain assessment was denied because the applicant failed to establish causation linking the chronic pain to the first accident rather than the second.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for dental treatment plans totaling $4,310.00 following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the plans, arguing the applicant's temporomandibular joint (TMJ) issues were not caused by the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed the medical evidence and found that the applicant had a pre-existing history of nocturnal teeth clenching and TMJ symptoms that were substantially similar to her post-accident complaints.

Applying the 'but for' test for causation, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish that her TMJ impairments were sustained as a result of the accident.

The application for medical benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological services.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans based on insurer examinations which found no objective physical impairments and concluded that the applicant's psychological symptoms were related to pre-existing behavioural issues rather than the accident.

The adjudicator agreed with the respondent's medical experts, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for a neurological assessment and the disputed balance of a driving evaluation assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the neurological assessment was not reasonable and necessary, as the insurer's examination concluded injuries were soft tissue in nature and the applicant provided no corroborating expert evidence.

For the driving evaluation assessment, the Tribunal allowed the cost of preparation services but denied the costs for mental health counselling (which duplicated an earlier psychological assessment) and the treatment provider's mileage (which is not payable under the Schedule).

The plaintiff sued the defendants for negligence and breach of the Occupiers' Liability Act after falling in a grocery store parking lot.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the action.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff's expert opinion regarding an unexpected curb height lacked factual foundation because the plaintiff did not provide her own affidavit evidence to support the expert's assumptions about her expectations.

The court emphasized the plaintiff's failure to "lead trump" by not filing direct evidence and found the curb was not a hazard.

The plaintiff was bitten by the defendant's dog, losing part of her thumb, after the dog suffered a seizure and fell into a ditch while the plaintiff was walking it.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing the plaintiff was in 'possession' of the dog and thus an 'owner' precluded from claiming compensation under the Dog Owners' Liability Act.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment on liability.

The court held that novel questions of law can be decided on summary judgment.

The court found the plaintiff was not in 'possession' of the dog as she did not exercise dominion and control similar to an owner.

The court found the defendant strictly liable under the Act, dismissed the negligence claim as the injuries were not reasonably foreseeable, and found no contributory negligence by the plaintiff.

The defendant's motion was dismissed and the plaintiff's cross-motion was granted, with the action to proceed to trial on damages only.