Karl Arvai

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their medical malpractice claim against the respondent doctor.

The appellants argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in finding that the cause of the patient's bleeding was an IUD rather than a laceration or perforation caused by the respondent's negligence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions and no reviewable error in her assessment of the evidence or exercise of discretion on costs.

The appellant suffered soft tissue injuries in a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

At trial, the jury awarded damages but declined to award compensation for future loss of income.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the trial judge's unorthodox charge to the jury deprived her of a fair trial.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the charge was unorthodox, it was fair as a whole and the jury's decision on future income loss was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and successfully arbitrated a claim for statutory accident benefits against the respondent insurer.

The arbitrator's decision left the issue of legal expenses to be resolved by the parties or through an expense hearing.

The appellant delayed requesting an expense hearing for 31 months.

The arbitrator subsequently denied the appellant's request for expenses due to the inordinate delay, refusing to extend the 30-day time limit under Rule 79.1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that the delay was not a mere technical breach and that the arbitrator properly exercised her discretion in prioritizing the principle of finality and the timely resolution of disputes.

The parties settled a statutory accident benefits dispute on the morning of the scheduled arbitration hearing.

As part of the settlement, the insurer agreed to pay the applicant's expenses, but the parties could not agree on the quantum.

The arbitrator reduced the preparation time claimed for one of the applicant's lawyers from 100.8 hours to 70.0 hours, finding the original amount somewhat high given that no hearing was conducted.

The arbitrator also reduced the disbursement claimed for an expert report to the $1,500 maximum permitted under the Expense Regulation.

The applicant was awarded total expenses of $14,653.71.

The applicant sought expenses following a successful arbitration for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer argued the claim was barred by Rule 79.1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, as the applicant waited 2.5 years to request an expense hearing instead of the required 30 days.

The arbitrator found the applicant's explanation for the delay uncompelling and declined to extend the time limit under Rule 81.

The applicant was denied his expenses of $29,008.12 due to the delay.

The arbitrator also declined to address an alleged error in the insurer's interest calculation, finding no authority to do so in an expense hearing.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the other driver.

In that tort action, she received a copy of an independent medical examination (IME) and a surveillance video from the tort defendant.

The plaintiff subsequently sued her own insurer for disability benefits.

During discoveries in the benefits action, the plaintiff refused to produce the IME and surveillance video, citing the deemed undertaking rule.

The Court of Appeal held that the deemed undertaking rule applies to the recipient of documents obtained in discovery.

Therefore, the plaintiff was bound by the deemed undertaking not to use the IME or the video in another proceeding, and could not disclose them in the benefits action without the consent of the tort defendant or a court order under rule 30.1.01(8).

Following an appeal that increased the appellant's damages award from $236,494.91 to $251,449.46, the award exceeded the respondents' $250,000 offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal held that the ordinary rule for costs should apply.

The court awarded costs to the appellant on a partial indemnity basis, referred those costs for assessment, and awarded $900 for costs submissions at trial.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 week income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant continued to operate his horse farm.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from severe chronic pain and depression, rendering him completely unable to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited, including his pre-accident work as a truck driver and farmer.

The arbitrator awarded income replacement benefits at $400 per week, interest on overdue payments, and a $25,000 special award against the insurer for unreasonably terminating benefits without sufficient medical or vocational investigation.

The insurer appealed a jury verdict awarding disability benefits to the plaintiff, arguing that the plaintiff's counsel made improper comments during the closing address and that the verdict was perverse.

The plaintiff cross-appealed the trial judge's decisions on punitive damages, prejudgment interest, the form of judgment, and costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, finding that the trial judge's instructions to the jury were adequate, the jury's verdict was supported by evidence, and there was no error in the trial judge's exercise of discretion regarding the cross-appeal issues.

The appellant was injured when improperly stored metal sheets in her apartment building's storage room fell on her leg, eventually leading to fibromyalgia.

A jury found the respondent landlords negligent but apportioned 75% of the fault to the appellant for contributory negligence.

The jury awarded damages, including $41,000 for non-pecuniary damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in instructing the jury to use the upper limit (cap) for non-pecuniary damages as a scale.

The Court substituted an award of $80,000 for non-pecuniary damages but upheld the jury's findings on contributory negligence and apportionment of fault.

The defendant appealed a motion judge's order dismissing her third-party claim for delay.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge exercised his discretion reasonably, as more than eleven years had passed since the events giving rise to the litigation and the defendant offered no satisfactory explanation for the inexcusable delay.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order requiring her to disclose a defence medical report and surveillance video obtained in a prior tort action to the respondent in her current accident benefits claim.

The motion judge had held that Rule 30.1.01 constrained the use of such evidence but not its disclosure.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the deemed undertaking rule prohibits collateral disclosure as well as collateral use to protect the privacy interests of litigants.

The court directed that any request for relief from the deemed undertaking must be brought before a motions judge under subrule 30.1.01(8).

The defendants in a personal injury action brought a motion for an extension of time to file a Notice of Cross-Appeal.

The trial judge had instructed the jury on causation using the 'material contribution' test, and the jury found in favour of the plaintiff.

Following a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision clarifying that the 'but for' test is the standard for causation, the defendants sought to cross-appeal.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, finding that the delay was reasonably explained, the cross-appeal had considerable merit, and the justice of the case favoured allowing the cross-appeal to proceed alongside the plaintiff's appeal.

Following an appeal and cross-appeal, the successful appellants sought their costs.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario awarded the appellants costs on a partial indemnity basis.

Finding the submitted bill of costs to be excessive, the court fixed the costs at $20,000 inclusive of disbursements and GST.

The plaintiff suffered a perforated bowel and fractured vertebra in a motor vehicle accident.

At trial, the jury assessed general damages at $500,000.

The trial judge reduced the award to the upper limit of $274,000 and permitted the plaintiff to amend the statement of claim to match this amount.

The defendants appealed, arguing the award was excessive, and the plaintiff cross-appealed, arguing the cap should not apply.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge correctly applied the cap and allowed the amendment, but found the $274,000 award excessive.

The Court substituted its own assessment of $150,000 for general damages.

The appellants were injured in motor vehicle accidents and commenced both accident benefits arbitration proceedings and civil actions for damages.

In the arbitration proceedings, they were compelled to submit to medical examinations.

The respondents in the civil actions sought production of the resulting medical reports.

The appellants refused, relying on the implied undertaking rule.

The Court of Appeal held that neither the deemed undertaking rule under the Rules of Civil Procedure nor the common law implied undertaking rule applied to protect the medical reports from disclosure in the tort actions, as the rule protects against use by the recipient of the information, not against all uses by the source of the information.

The appeals were dismissed.

Following a settlement of a statutory accident benefits claim for $85,000 plus expenses, the parties could not agree on the quantum of expenses.

The applicant claimed approximately $33,000 in legal fees and disbursements.

The arbitrator assessed the expenses by applying the criteria in the Dispute Resolution Practice Code and the Expense Regulation.

The arbitrator reduced the hours claimed due to late delivery of medical reports and time thrown away by a change of counsel, but allowed the maximum hourly rate of $150 for the applicant's senior counsel due to the excellent result achieved.

The insurer was ordered to pay $20,913.68 in expenses.

Following successful appeals regarding the application of the implied undertaking rule to medical reports, the appellants sought costs.

The respondents argued that no costs should be awarded because the appeals involved a novel and complex question of law with conflicting decisions.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding that the parties were pursuing their own disclosure interests, and awarded costs to the appellants on a partial indemnity scale.

The court fixed the costs for the various stages of the proceedings, ordering that they be payable at the end of the actions to avoid prejudicing the respondents' access to justice.

The plaintiffs were injured in motor vehicle accidents and commenced both accident benefit arbitration proceedings and tort actions.

In the tort actions, the defendants sought production of medical reports obtained during the arbitration proceedings.

The motions judges dismissed the requests, relying on the implied undertaking rule.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that neither the deemed undertaking rule nor the implied undertaking rule protected the medical reports from disclosure.

The reports were highly relevant to the tort actions, and the plaintiffs had waived their privacy interests by putting their medical conditions in issue.

The appeals were allowed and the plaintiffs were ordered to produce the reports.

The appellant appealed an order finding that a licence granted by the respondent agricultural society was terminable at will.

The Court of Appeal held that a licence is not revocable at will, but remains in effect in equity in accordance with the terms of the original contract, and was revocable by the society only if necessary to carry out its reasonable purposes, including for cause.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the Superior Court to determine whether the licence was properly terminated for cause.