Kirk Boyd

Following a trial where the plaintiffs were awarded damages for a motor vehicle accident, the defendant brought a motion for a conditional assignment order of the plaintiff's Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS).

The parties disagreed on the effective date of the assignment.

The court held that the effective date of the assignment is the date of the reasons for judgment, but the assignment is conditional upon and triggered by the payment of the judgment in full.

The plaintiff pedestrian was struck by the defendant's vehicle while crossing a street.

The defendant was found 100% liable.

The plaintiff had a highly complex pre-existing medical history, including chronic pain, sarcoidosis, and melanoma.

The court found the plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and other injuries from the collision, which exacerbated his pre-existing conditions and impaired his ability to manage them.

The court assessed damages for the plaintiff and his family members, but reduced the total awards by 25% applying the crumbling skull principle, as the plaintiff would have been detrimentally affected by his pre-existing conditions regardless of the accident.

The injuries were found to meet the statutory threshold.

During a personal injury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs objected to the admissibility of an expert report from the defendant's occupational therapist regarding the injured plaintiff's attendant care needs.

The plaintiffs argued the report did not comply with a previous court ruling that limited the expert's evidence to the practical delivery model of care rather than the quantum of hours required.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs, finding the report went beyond the permitted scope by critiquing the plaintiff's expert and opining on the number of hours needed.

The court ruled that only specific portions of the report addressing the cost and availability of personal support workers and handyman services were admissible.

Appeal from an arbitral decision concerning a priority dispute between insurers over statutory accident benefits.

The issue was when the respondent insurer received a “completed application” triggering the 90‑day notice period under s. 3(1) of O. Reg. 283/95 (Disputes Between Insurers).

The arbitrator held that the application became functionally complete when full spousal insurance details were received months later.

The court held that the application became functionally adequate earlier, once the insurer obtained sufficient information to begin reasonable investigations into potential priority insurers.

Because notice was given more than 90 days after that point and the savings provision in s. 3(2) did not apply, the appeal was allowed and the arbitration award set aside.