Keri Wilson

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding as a passenger on a city bus.

She applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment, which the insurer denied.

At arbitration, the arbitrator considered whether the applicant met the criteria under sections 2(1.2)(f) and (g) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's combined physical and psychological impairments resulted in a 42% whole person impairment, falling short of the 55% threshold under section 2(1.2)(f).

However, the arbitrator concluded that the applicant suffers from a pain disorder driven by both physical and psychological factors, resulting in a marked impairment in the realm of adaptation.

Consequently, the applicant was deemed catastrophically impaired under section 2(1.2)(g).

The applicant's request for a special award was denied as there was no dispute regarding the payment of benefits.

The respondent children's aid society filed requests for orders during proceedings to consolidate two human rights applications brought by siblings, to require a litigation guardian for the minor applicant, and to set terms for the production of files.

The Tribunal granted the request to consolidate the applications.

To ensure fairness and efficiency, the Tribunal ordered the consolidated applications to be held in abeyance until the minor applicant turns 18, rather than addressing the litigation guardian issue immediately.

The respondent may renew its request regarding file production when the matter is taken out of abeyance.

The applicant, a self-represented single mother of African Caribbean descent, alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society and its caseworker discriminated and reprised against her during the apprehension of her children.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant genuinely believed she was treated unfairly due to her race and family status, she could not point to any evidence beyond mere speculation to link the respondents' actions to Code-protected grounds.

The application was dismissed for having no reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant, who is self-represented, requested an adjournment of a scheduled summary hearing on the basis that she was facing resistance in obtaining personal files from the respondent and a hospital.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the applicant had not established exceptional circumstances as required by the Practice Direction.

The Tribunal noted that no evidence would be required at the summary hearing, which was convened to address legal issues and whether there was a reasonable prospect of success, and therefore the inability to access documents did not justify an adjournment.

The plaintiff, a 16-year-old driver, was injured in a single-vehicle accident after failing to stop at a stop sign at a rural intersection and crashing into a concrete abutment.

The plaintiff had consumed alcohol prior to the crash.

The plaintiff sued the municipality, alleging the intersection was in a state of non-repair because it lacked warning signs for a change in road alignment (an 'offset' intersection).

The court found that the intersection posed a hidden hazard and required a warning sign in addition to the stop sign.

The court apportioned liability 50% to the municipality for failure to warn and 50% to the plaintiff for failing to stop and driving after consuming alcohol.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration of the applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits, alleging delay, failure to produce medical records, and failure to attend insurer examinations.

The insurer also sought its expenses.

The applicant's paralegal representative brought a motion to be removed from the record.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the delay was largely institutional or on consent, and that the insurer failed to prove it complied with the notice requirements for the insurer examinations.

The arbitrator ordered the applicant to sign fresh authorizations for medical records.

The insurer's request for expenses was dismissed.

The representative's motion to be removed was adjourned so she could serve her client.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in employment on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent Children's Aid Society improperly disclosed her medical information to the respondent Family Respite Services, which then refused to hire her.

The Children's Aid Society requested that the Tribunal defer the application because the applicant had also filed a complaint with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

The Tribunal dismissed the request to defer, finding that the privacy complaint involved different legal issues and potential remedies, and that proceeding with the human rights application was the most fair, just, and expeditious outcome.

The applicant's representative brought a motion to be removed as the applicant's representative due to a breakdown in their relationship.

The insurer sought an award of expenses against the representative or her firm.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion to withdraw, finding that the applicant had not consented and that the representative had an outstanding undertaking to file submissions on a separate motion.

The insurer's motion for expenses was adjourned to allow the representative to file responding materials.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' claims for statutory accident benefits, the insurer sought $9,309.94 for its expenses of the arbitration.

The arbitrator found the insurer was entitled to expenses because the applicants failed to withdraw their claims, necessitating an unnecessary hearing of uncontested evidence.

However, the arbitrator reduced the quantum claimed, finding the preparation time excessive given the simplicity of the issues and denying travel time for retaining out-of-town counsel without justification.

The insurer was awarded $4,720.75 in expenses.

The applicants claimed they were injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied the claims, alleging the accident did not occur.

The applicants failed to attend the arbitration hearing.

Relying on the insurer's expert evidence in accident reconstruction, which demonstrated that the physical damage to the vehicles was inconsistent with the applicants' description of the collision, the arbitrator concluded that the accident did not occur.

The claims for statutory accident benefits were dismissed.