Kerry W. Nash

The applicant commenced a second application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) seeking over $100 million in damages against her insurer, adjusters, and health professionals for alleged tortious conduct related to her statutory accident benefits (SABS) claim.

The LAT declined to process the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to award damages or make orders against non-insurer parties.

The applicant sought judicial review and appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court dismissed the proceedings under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, holding that the LAT is a statutory body without jurisdiction to award general or non-compensatory damages, and that the proceedings constituted an abuse of process and an impermissible collateral attack on a prior final LAT decision regarding her SABS.

The court considered motions for costs personally against George Windsor, who commenced proceedings on behalf of Gilles Jozias Overtveld and Gi-Las Management and Maintenance Ltd. without proper authority.

The action was found to be duplicative, meritless, and a waste of resources.

The court fixed costs on a substantial indemnity basis against Mr. Windsor personally, disallowed him from charging legal fees to the plaintiffs, and set out the principles for awarding costs in such circumstances.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of the Tribunal's decision not to process her application.

The application sought damages from an insurer and several non-insurer respondents for alleged breaches of the duty of good faith and civil conspiracy.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or fact.

The Tribunal held that its jurisdiction under section 280 of the Insurance Act is limited to disputes over statutory accident benefits and amounts, and it does not have the authority to award punitive or other damages against insurers or non-insurers.

The moving parties sought a review of a motion judge's order that dismissed their request for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal.

The underlying appeal was from an order striking out their statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's application of the test for an extension of time, agreeing that there was no apparent merit to the appeal and that granting an extension would prejudice the responding parties.

The Court noted that the Brampton action, which was struck, appeared to be an improper attempt to circumvent rulings made in prior Ottawa actions.

The motion for review was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's Order dismissing their action for delay.

The action arose from an unpaid loan of $36,300 allegedly secured by a second mortgage handled by the defendant lawyer.

The plaintiffs experienced multiple issues with their legal representation, leading to the dismissal.

Applying the four-part test from Reid v. Dow Corning Corp., the court found the plaintiffs' explanation and promptness tenuous but prioritized the litigants' rights over their counsel's conduct.

Finding no significant prejudice to the defendant, the court set aside the dismissal on strict terms and awarded costs to the defendant in the cause.

The appellant filed a police misconduct complaint under the Police Services Act and commenced a parallel civil action for damages arising from the same arrest.

After the disciplinary hearing officer found the officers not guilty, the respondents successfully moved to strike the civil claims on the basis of issue estoppel.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in a 4-3 decision, allowed the appeal, holding that while no public policy rule should categorically exclude police disciplinary hearings from issue estoppel, the Court of Appeal erred in its discretionary analysis by failing to consider the significant differences in purpose, scope, and stakes between the two proceedings, the parties' reasonable expectations, and the unfairness of permitting the Chief of Police's designate's decision to exonerate the Chief from civil liability.