Kenneth M. Wright

The applicants, minority shareholders in a family-owned wholesale grocery business, brought an oppression application against the majority shareholders and the company.

The dispute arose over succession planning, with the majority seeking to sell the company's assets to a third-generation family member, which the applicants opposed.

The court found that while the applicants did not have a reasonable expectation of passing their shares to their sons, the proposed asset sale and certain workplace actions were oppressive.

The court ordered the sale of the applicants' shares at fair market value to the proposed purchaser or the company.

The plaintiff tenant brought an action against the defendant landlord for wrongful termination of a commercial lease for a dry cleaning business.

The landlord brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and for judgment on its counterclaim for damages.

The court found that the tenant was on a month-to-month tenancy and had breached the lease by failing to comply with regulations governing dry cleaning businesses.

The court held that the lease was lawfully terminated, dismissed the plaintiff's claim, and granted the landlord's counterclaim for damages, reducing the claim for rent arrears.

The applicants sought a declaration of ownership and vesting order over a triangular waterfront parcel based on adverse possession.

The claim relied on decades of community use by a local residents’ association that maintained a dock, stored boats, and used the area for recreational access to the river.

The court accepted that the use was open, notorious, peaceful, and continuous for many years and arose from a mutual mistake about the boundary between adjoining lots.

However, the applicants failed to prove that their possession was adverse and exclusive, as the legal owners and their lessees continued to use the land alongside the group.

Because the owners’ possession was never discontinued and no intention to exclude them was established, the elements of adverse possession were not satisfied.

The insurer brought a motion to exclude the evidence and report of the applicant's treating physiatrist, arguing he was no longer a qualified practitioner under the Evidence Act due to the revocation of his medical license for professional misconduct.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, holding that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permits the admission of relevant evidence and that the prejudice to the applicant in excluding his long-term treating physician outweighed the insurer's concerns of impropriety.

The arbitrator also admitted transcripts of several witnesses from a previous arbitration hearing on consent.

The applicant brought a motion for interim expenses to fund medical reports for an upcoming arbitration regarding statutory accident benefits.

The insurer opposed the motion and sought an order requiring the applicant to attend an insurer's examination with a physiatrist.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for interim expenses, finding the applicant failed to provide evidence of an inability to pay, particularly given a recent $40,000 tort settlement.

The arbitrator granted the insurer's request for the examination, noting the applicant's objections were unfounded and based on a misunderstanding of a previous ruling.

The insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

Following a successful arbitration by the insured, an appeal, and a judicial review, a new hearing was ordered.

Prior to the re-hearing, the insurer sought a stay of proceedings because the insured refused to attend further insurer examinations.

The arbitrator held that given the lengthy passage of time (four to six years) since the previous examinations, it was reasonably necessary for the insured to attend an updated examination by the insurer's orthopaedic surgeon.

The hearing was adjourned pending the insured's attendance at this examination.

The insurer's requests for a further Designated Assessment Centre evaluation and an examination by the previous DAC physiatrist were denied.

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

The insurer disputed the hourly rate claimed for the applicant's counsel and the preparation time claimed for expert witnesses.

The arbitrator held that under the applicable regulation in force at the time the application was filed, the maximum hourly rate for legal fees was restricted to the Legal Aid Act rate of $83.75, and expert preparation time was not recoverable.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant $13,100.73 for legal expenses and $8,889.42 for disbursements.

The insurer appealed an arbitration decision that reinstated the claimant's income replacement benefits and ordered a $5,000 special award.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her factual findings, unfairly restricted and ignored the evidence of the insurer's medical expert regarding surveillance video, and failed to adequately address the complexity of the conflicting medical evidence.

The arbitration order was rescinded, the special award was overturned because the insurer reasonably relied on a Designated Assessment Centre report, and a new hearing before a different arbitrator was ordered.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle and subsequently claimed income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated these benefits based on a Designated Assessment Centre report.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was substantially disabled from performing the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment, which included multiple labour-intensive part-time jobs.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's medical experts over the insurer's assessors.

Furthermore, the arbitrator awarded a $5,000 special award, finding that the insurer acted unreasonably by ignoring additional medical evidence that supported the applicant's claim.