Kevin H. Griffiths

The appellant sought to rescind a 2002 settlement for Statutory Accident Benefits, arguing the insurer's disclosure notice failed to strictly comply with regulatory requirements.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed her request, finding the notice adequate.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found the Tribunal erred in placing the burden of proof on the insured and applying a 'some compliance' standard instead of the bright-line test from Smith.

However, applying the correct test, the Court concluded the defects in the notice were merely technical and did not deprive the appellant of important information.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought to schedule motions to set aside two 2007 consent orders that dismissed his actions following a settlement for statutory accident benefits.

The plaintiff intended to argue that the settlement was void due to non-disclosure by the insurer and to raise a constitutional challenge against binding Court of Appeal precedent.

The court declined to schedule a single unified hearing, finding the proposed proceedings too complex and fraught with procedural issues.

Instead, the court directed the parties to first schedule a hearing to determine whether the court has jurisdiction (or if the License Appeal Tribunal is the proper forum) and whether the plaintiff must repay the settlement funds before challenging the settlement.

The plaintiff sought to schedule a single, three-hour motion to set aside a 2007 settlement of his statutory accident benefits claims, arguing the insurer failed to provide a mandatory disclosure notice and settled without his authority.

The court found the proposed scheduling premature and procedurally inappropriate, noting complex jurisdictional issues regarding whether the Licence Appeal Tribunal or the court is the proper forum, and whether the plaintiff must first repay the settlement funds.

The court directed the parties to discuss the proper forum and scheduling before proceeding.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding statutory accident benefits.

At the hearing, the appellant advised the court she was not actually seeking to appeal the Tribunal's decision, but rather sought to add unresolved claims to an existing Superior Court action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the appellant had not appealed the prior Superior Court decision that barred her from adding those claims, and the time to do so had expired.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate's decision finding that the respondent suffered a catastrophic impairment under s. 2(1.1)(g) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the decision, holding that the Delegate erred in law by concluding that a marked impairment in only one of four areas of functioning was sufficient for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The Court further held that the Delegate erred by failing to exclude pain associated with physical injuries when assessing impairment due to mental or behavioural disorder, as required by the AMA Guides incorporated into the legislation.