Kevan Wylie

The moving party brought a motion under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to set aside a previous costs order, alleging it was obtained by fraud because the responding parties had not paid their legal fees and the bill of costs contained errors.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the responding parties had a deferred payment arrangement and remained liable for the fees, satisfying the indemnity principle.

The court concluded that administrative errors in the bill of costs did not amount to fraud and awarded substantial indemnity costs against the moving party for making unfounded allegations.

The applicant, Charles Frederick Armstrong, challenged the constitutionality of the Township of Russell’s Sign By-Law, which restricted the display of municipal election signs.

The court found that the by-law violated Armstrong’s freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the violation was not justified under section 1.

The court also found that the Township was unjustly enriched by requiring Armstrong to pay $450 for the return of his signs, which had been removed under the unconstitutional by-law.

This decision concerns an anti-SLAPP motion brought by the defendants, Trinitee Okoye and Olivia Singaye, seeking to stay or dismiss a defamation action by the plaintiffs, Reynolds Okoh, Axel Mensah, and 2357392 Ontario Inc. o/a The Palace Ottawa.

The court found that the impugned social media posts did not constitute expression on a matter of public interest within the meaning of section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Even if the threshold were met, the court held that the action had substantial merit and the defences of justification and fair comment were unlikely to succeed.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant Million Dollar Round Table (MDRT) brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim against it for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, or alternatively, for dismissal due to delay.

The plaintiff alleged negligence against MDRT, a voluntary trade association, based on a fraudulent letter from a former member bearing the MDRT emblem.

The court found that the claim failed to plead sufficient material facts to establish a novel duty of care owed by MDRT to the plaintiff, particularly for pure economic loss.

Despite the defendant's delay in bringing the motion and having filed a statement of defence, the court granted the motion to strike without leave to amend, citing the futility of the claim, the plaintiff's inaction in advancing the case, and the principle of proportionality in simplified procedure actions.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment and a chronic pain assessment following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's ongoing symptoms were related to pre-existing degenerative changes rather than the accident.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and preferred the detailed reports of the insurer's examination doctors over the sparse clinical notes of the applicant's treating physicians.

Although the insurer failed to provide notice of denial for the chiropractic plan within the required 10 business days, the applicant failed to establish how the treatment related to the period of non-compliance.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his pre-existing chronic back pain was exacerbated.

He disputed the respondent's denial of treatment plans for acupuncture, physiotherapy, hydrotherapy, and personal training.

The Tribunal found that while the accident was a necessary cause of his current pain complaints, the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The evidence, including the applicant's own statements to medical professionals, indicated that he found the proposed treatments painful, unhelpful, or was not interested in participating in them.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a defence psychiatric examination over seven years after the motor vehicle accident and after the matter had been set down for trial.

The court found the defendants had delayed inordinately without adequate explanation, having known of the plaintiff's mental health issues since at least 2018.

The motion was dismissed as granting the relief would prejudice the plaintiff and jeopardize the upcoming trial date.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding because he failed to attend two scheduled insurer examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to attend the examinations without a reasonable explanation and declined to exercise its discretion to allow the application to proceed.

The applicant's claim for non-earner benefits was dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was denied as the applicant's conduct was not found to be unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant filed a second application for statutory accident benefits, disputing issues that had been dismissed as abandoned in a prior application after she failed to attend two case conferences.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue, arguing the duplicate claims should be barred by res judicata or abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that while res judicata did not apply because the prior dismissal was not a decision on the merits, the applicant's attempt to re-litigate the dismissed issues constituted an abuse of process under section 23(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant failed to satisfy the Reid factors to set aside the dismissal.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's claim for a dental assessment was statute-barred as it was filed beyond the two-year limitation period, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend it.

The Tribunal determined that the applicant's left knee and right shoulder issues were pre-existing and not caused by the accident.

However, the applicant was entitled to a treatment plan for assistive devices (excluding a knee brace) because the insurer failed to provide proper medical reasons for its denial under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Claims for an in-home assessment and an ENT assessment were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The request for an award for unreasonable delay was also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding her statute-barred from disputing her claim for a non-earner benefit and a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law by failing to apply the doctrine of discoverability established in Tomec v. Economical, and by failing to consider MRI evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that Tomec was distinguishable because the applicant's benefits were not pre-emptively denied prior to eligibility.

Furthermore, the MRI evidence did not support the applicant's position that she only later discovered her claim for a non-earner benefit, as it did not indicate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for medical treatments and examinations following a 2011 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing that the applicant's impairments were related to pre-existing degenerative conditions and a subsequent 2017 accident, rather than the 2011 accident.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and found that the applicant failed to prove the 2011 accident was a necessary cause of his impairments.

The Tribunal relied on the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence of injury, the applicant's extensive pre-existing health history, and surveillance evidence that contradicted the claimed impairments.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing that the applicant's needs stemmed from extensive pre-existing medical conditions, including Parkinson's disease and dementia, rather than the soft tissue injuries sustained in the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to prove the requested benefits and assessments were reasonable and necessary or causally related to the accident.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for a catastrophic impairment assessment totaling $16,000 following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the proposed catastrophic assessment was reasonable and necessary.

The medical evidence, including reports from treating physicians and independent examiners, did not suggest the applicant's injuries might reach the threshold of a 55% whole person impairment or marked impairment in three or more areas of function.

As no benefits were payable, the claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the claims were statute-barred under the two-year limitation period.

Prior to the written hearing, the applicant withdrew the preliminary issues in dispute.

The respondent subsequently sought costs, arguing the application was a duplication of previous proceedings at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario and was frivolous, vexatious, and in bad faith.

The Tribunal found that the previous proceedings did not result in a hearing on the merits or a binding settlement, and the applicant's withdrawal of the issues did not constitute unreasonable conduct.

The respondent's request for costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to psychological and physical injuries.

The respondent denied the catastrophic impairment designation, non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans, arguing her psychological issues and epilepsy were pre-existing.

The Tribunal found that while the accident caused a specific phobia and worsened her pre-existing depression, it did not cause her epilepsy.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 or 8, relying heavily on surveillance evidence and the respondent's expert reports which showed significant post-accident improvement.

The claims for non-earner benefits, attendant care, and treatment plans were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life or that the expenses were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a 2011 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits in August 2012.

More than five years later, the applicant filed an application for dispute resolution, arguing the limitation period was not triggered because she was illiterate in English and did not understand the denial.

The Tribunal found the denial was valid and clear, triggering the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act due to the significant delay and lack of a bona fide intention to appeal, concluding the application was statute-barred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied funding for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that she failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition or psychological impairment that would remove her from the MIG.

As the funding limit was exhausted, the claims for medical benefits, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, a medical benefit for psychotherapy, an award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's pre-existing conditions, including fibromyalgia, accounted for her ongoing complaints.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical assessments, which showed functional range of motion and no complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The claim for psychotherapy was also denied as the psychological assessment relied on self-reporting and contradicted pre-accident medical records.

The applicant sought medical benefits for chiropractic services and hydrotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that surveillance evidence showing the applicant playing basketball and performing a 'slam dunk' contradicted his claims of limited functionality.

The Tribunal also noted that the treating chiropractor completed the treatment plans without having recently assessed the applicant.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and a special award were denied.