Keith Edward Douglas Finley

The insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The insurer denied the designation, and the insured filed an Application for Mediation.

Before the 60-day mediation period expired and before mediation had failed, the insured filed an Application for Arbitration.

The insurer requested a preliminary issue hearing to determine if the arbitrator had jurisdiction.

The arbitrator held that the Application for Arbitration was barred because the statutory pre-condition of a failed mediation under s. 281(2) of the Insurance Act had not been met at the time the application was filed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The parties settled all issues except expenses shortly before the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator determined that the applicant was entitled to expenses under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act.

The arbitrator awarded $1,200 for legal fees, $3,500 for expert reports (allowing the reports of Dr. Jha and Dr. Braganza but rejecting a second report by Dr. Waxer as duplicative), and $1,150 for disbursements, for a total expense award of $5,850.

The applicant sought approval of an infant settlement for an accident benefits claim, approval of a contingency fee agreement to apply to both the accident benefits claim and a future tort action, and a sealing order for the court file.

The court declined to approve the settlement or the legal fees due to insufficient affidavit evidence from the litigation guardian and counsel as required by Rule 7.08.

The court also refused to approve the contingency fee agreement for the tort action, finding the fairness and reasonableness requirements were not met on the current record.

The request for a sealing order was dismissed as the applicant failed to meet the Dagenais/Mentuck test.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 30.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking production of documents referenced in the plaintiffs’ statement of claim.

The plaintiffs opposed production, arguing the defendants had not shown the documents were necessary to plead a defence.

The court reviewed the history and purpose of Rule 30.04(2) and held that documents specifically referred to in pleadings are incorporated into those pleadings and must be produced for inspection upon request.

The court rejected the argument that necessity for pleading is a precondition to inspection and emphasized the Rules’ objective of full disclosure and avoidance of trial by ambush.

The motion was granted and the defendants’ time to deliver a statement of defence was extended to ten days after delivery of the requested documents.