Lane Foster

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to submit her application (OCF-1) within the 30-day timeline prescribed by section 32(5) of the Schedule.

The applicant argued she did not consent to receiving the application package via her Gmail address and that her medical condition caused the delay.

The Tribunal admitted an audio recording of a telephone call confirming the applicant explicitly consented to email delivery to her Gmail account and was informed of the 30-day timeline.

Applying the Horvath principles, the Tribunal found the applicant's explanation was not credible or worthy of belief, and she failed to provide medical evidence supporting her inability to comply.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred under section 55(1)1.

The plaintiff, Kathleen MacNeill, sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained after ingesting a deliming agent in coffee served at a McDonald’s drive-thru.

The court found that while the incident was unsettling, the evidence did not establish that the plaintiff suffered any serious or permanent injury causally related to the incident.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s claims for general, income, and future care damages, awarding only $5,000 for temporary pain and inconvenience.

The decision turned on findings of credibility, causation, and the weight of expert and lay evidence.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding with three issues due to her failure to attend a properly scheduled insurer's examination under s. 44 of the Schedule.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal granted entitlement to two occupational therapy treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary for pain management and sleep hygiene.

The Tribunal denied entitlement to the unapproved amounts of several other physiotherapy and occupational therapy treatment plans because the applicant failed to provide evidence that the overall costs were reasonable.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue benefits but denied an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment.

He argued the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness by providing inadequate reasons and raising issues on its own, and that it erred in fact and law in assessing the medical evidence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the reasons were adequate, the evidence relied upon was properly before the Tribunal, and the applicant was improperly attempting to re-weigh the evidence rather than identifying actual errors.

The applicant sought a determination that he was catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule due to mental and behavioral disorders resulting from a motor vehicle accident.

While the Tribunal accepted that the applicant sustained post-traumatic stress disorder, a major depressive episode, and substance use disorder as a result of the accident, it found that these impairments did not reach the threshold of a marked (Class 4) impairment in any of the four functional domains.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant retained some useful functioning in activities of daily living and social functioning, and therefore dismissed the application.

The defendant, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, brought a motion to strike two Requests to Admit (RTAs) or, in the alternative, to withdraw deemed admissions that arose from their failure to respond to the RTAs.

The plaintiff argued that the non-response was deliberate and part of a pattern of uncooperative litigation conduct.

The court found the RTAs were not an abuse of process but allowed the withdrawal of admissions, finding a reasonable explanation (inadvertence) and no uncompensable prejudice to the plaintiff.

Despite the defendant's success on the motion, the court deprived them of costs due to their overall pattern of non-responsiveness and lack of cooperation, sanctioning their litigation conduct.

The defendant, 1190393 Ontario Limited o/a Phil’s Grandsons Place (PGP), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim arising from an altercation outside its premises.

The plaintiffs alleged PGP was liable for serving excessive alcohol to a co-defendant who assaulted one of the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed PGP's motion, finding that granting partial summary judgment would not be in the interests of justice due to the risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings, as a crossclaim by the co-defendant against PGP on the same issues would still proceed to trial.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, physiotherapy, medical cannabis, an emotional support dog, and home modifications.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits, physiotherapy, or home modifications, as they were not reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to reimbursement for incurred medical cannabis expenses to manage her chronic pain syndrome, and to an emotional support dog to address her accident-related anxiety, as she had already attempted frontline treatments.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue payments but declined to grant an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding no unreasonable delay by the insurer.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The respondent terminated IRBs based on insurer examinations concluding her physical injuries had resolved.

The Tribunal found that the accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's chronic pain syndrome, which rendered her completely unable to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal awarded ongoing IRBs and interest.

The physiotherapy treatment plan was denied as the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal also ordered a $2,800 award against the respondent under Regulation 664 for unreasonably failing to provide the applicant's chronic pain assessment report to its own medical examiners, which prejudiced the assessment process.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found that the exclusion under s. 31(1)(a)(i) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule did not apply to the applicant.

The respondent argued the Tribunal made an error of law by applying a subjective test rather than an objective test to determine whether the applicant knew or ought reasonably to have known he was operating his motorcycle without liability insurance.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding that the Tribunal erred in law by applying a subjective test.

Applying the correct objective test, the Vice-Chair concluded that an ordinary, rational person with the applicant's background ought reasonably to have known the motorcycle was uninsured.

The request for reconsideration was granted, and the applicant's claim was found subject to the exclusion.

The plaintiff was involved in a head-on motor vehicle collision caused by the defendants.

The defendants did not contest liability.

The trial focused on the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and damages.

The plaintiff claimed to have suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and psychiatric injuries, rendering him unable to return to his employment as a Lead Hand electrician for the City of Guelph.

The defendants argued the plaintiff's injuries were exaggerated and that he could return to work with accommodation.

The court accepted the evidence of the plaintiff and his treating medical experts, finding that he suffered permanent and serious impairments, including cognitive deficits, vision and hearing issues, and chronic pain.

The court awarded the plaintiff $225,000 in general damages, $38,177.40 in special damages, $75,308 for past lost wages, $1,282,074 for future income loss, and $735,092 for future care costs.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The court found the defendant entirely at fault.

The court concluded the plaintiff's injuries, which included chronic pain and post-concussion syndrome, met the statutory threshold as a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The plaintiff was awarded $100,000 in general damages, $1,993.10 in special damages, and $143,560.78 for future care costs.

Claims for past and future income loss were dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish she would have worked as a dental assistant but for the accident.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied benefits, arguing the applicant knew or ought reasonably to have known he was driving without liability insurance, triggering the exclusion under s. 31(1)(a)(i) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had requested his broker to adjust his coverage while the motorcycle was in storage, but did not know this meant liability coverage was removed.

Applying a subjective test, the Tribunal concluded the respondent failed to prove the applicant knew or ought reasonably to have known he lacked liability insurance.

The exclusion did not apply.

The court denied approval of a settlement for a party under disability due to significant deficiencies in the motion material.

These deficiencies included insufficient medical evidence to assess the injured party's present and future needs, lack of full disclosure regarding a companion tort action and any settlement offers therein, and inadequate details for the proposed allocation of settlement funds.

Furthermore, the court found insufficient information regarding a loan from counsel to the applicant and the fairness and reasonableness of the contingency fee agreement, which appeared to conflate tort and accident benefits claims.

The court also dismissed the request to seal the court record, emphasizing the high bar for such an extraordinary order.

The matter was to be re-submitted after the identified deficiencies were addressed.