Kristen Bailey

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing right shoulder and back conditions.

The Tribunal found that while a pre-existing shoulder condition was established, the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that it would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessor over the applicant's section 25 assessor, noting the latter's assessment occurred after a subsequent accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and dismissed his claims for treatment plans, an award, and interest.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its handling of his family physician's evidence regarding a chronic pain diagnosis and in failing to assess a treatment plan for catastrophic impairment assessments.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the original decision's weighing of the medical evidence was comprehensive and reasonable.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that because the applicant's injuries were found to be predominantly minor, there was no need to assess whether catastrophic impairment assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after a vehicle crashed into his house while he was sleeping in another room.

He claimed to have suffered psychological and emotional injuries as a result of the incident.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not 'involved' in the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not witness the accident, was not physically injured, and was not related to anyone involved in the accident.

Consequently, he did not meet the definition of an 'insured person' involved in an accident under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that pre-existing back and neck issues, ocular migraines, and accident-related chronic pain and psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-accident medical records did not establish an ongoing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's independent medical examination report over the applicant's physiotherapist and occupational therapist records, as the latter were not physicians capable of diagnosing chronic pain or psychological impairments.

The applicant was found to be subject to the MIG and entitled only to the remaining $38.51 of the limit, with claims for an award and costs dismissed.

The appellants sought to set aside an order dismissing their motion to stay the enforcement of certain costs orders from lower court proceedings.

However, the Supreme Court of Canada subsequently dismissed their application for leave to appeal with costs, rendering the appeal before the Court of Appeal moot.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as moot, and costs were fixed in favour of the respondents.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their claims, asserting a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal found no evidentiary basis to support this serious legal claim or the suggestion that counsel behaved inappropriately.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the appellants.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended that her pre-existing migraines and back pain were exacerbated by the accident, and that she suffered from chronic pain and a possible concussion, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support removal from the MIG, noting the applicant's functional abilities remained intact and there was no formal diagnosis of a concussion or chronic pain syndrome.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plan was deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $1,417.48 for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant's shoulder injury was not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal reviewed the medical evidence, noting the applicant did not report shoulder issues until nearly eleven months post-accident and that a neurologist attributed the shoulder issues to a pre-existing contracture from prior bilateral prophylactic mastectomies.

The Tribunal found the shoulder injury was not accident-related and dismissed the application for the treatment plan and interest.

A condominium corporation sought a substantial costs award following an application brought to enforce compliance with the Condominium Act, 1998 and the condominium’s declaration and rules.

The underlying dispute involved alleged misconduct by a unit occupier that resulted in complaints and prior police involvement, but the matter was resolved after a consent order and no further incidents occurred.

The court considered the corporation’s request for full or substantial indemnity costs under s.134 of the Act but found the extensive application record unnecessary and disproportionate.

Emphasizing the court’s discretion over costs and the circumstances of the respondent’s disabilities and the settlement achieved, the court limited recovery to a reduced partial indemnity amount.

The applicant was awarded $5,000 in all‑inclusive costs payable within five years.

The appellant, a condominium unit owner, appealed an order restricting his statutory right to examine condominium records and prohibiting him from coming within 25 feet of the management office.

The application judge had found his unrelenting requests amounted to harassment.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, finding the complete elimination of his statutory right of access and the broad injunctive relief too extreme, especially since the conduct did not amount to actionable harassment.

The court set aside the injunctive components but upheld the requirements that requests be made in writing and photocopying charges be paid in advance.

The respondents originally brought an application for an oppression remedy under the Condominium Act, which was converted into an action by a consent order.

Years later, without delivering a statement of claim, the respondents returned the matter to a motion judge, seeking substantive monetary relief and alleging contempt.

The motion judge granted the monetary relief.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the motion judge lacked jurisdiction to grant substantive relief on a motion since the application had been converted to an action, and the relief could not be justified as a remedy for contempt.