Laura Christine Bassett

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that a TTC bus driving over a raised manhole cover at excessive speed constituted a 'collision' with 'any other object' under s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act.

The respondent argued the adjudicator erred in law and fact by misinterpreting legislative intent, misapplying case law, and relying on tort law considerations.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact that would have led to a different result, and affirmed that the forceful impact caused by the bus's speed transformed the interaction into a collision.

The court approved a class action settlement between Elias Faiz and Canadian All Care Inc. (operating as Canadian All Care College) regarding the college’s Diagnostic Medical Sonography program.

The settlement provides $1.4 million in compensation for non-tuition losses to class members, with a minimum of $450 per month of enrollment.

The court approved the settlement, the contingency fee agreement, class counsel fees and disbursements, the appointment of Verita as claims administrator, and the notice plan, but declined to award an honorarium to the representative plaintiff, Faiz, finding no exceptional circumstances.

The decision reviews the legal principles for settlement approval, contingency fees, and honoraria in class actions.

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

The respondent denied several treatment and assessment plans, including chiropractic services, cognitive devices, a driving reintegration assessment, a chronic pain assessment, and a fitness membership assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's section 44 examination reports which found no objective evidence of impairment and concluded the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a November 2018 motor vehicle accident where she was rear-ended in a parking lot.

The insurer denied a $2,200 treatment plan for a psychiatric and chronic pain assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence submitted by the applicant, including reports from various specialists, related to a prior, unrelated accident from February 2018 where she was struck as a cyclist or pedestrian.

Consequently, the applicant failed to meet her burden to prove her injuries from the subject accident warranted removal from the MIG or entitlement to the disputed treatment plan.

The application was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence, nor did he request an extension.

The respondent sought a dismissal of the application.

Proceeding in the applicant's absence under s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof and dismissed the application.

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence that his physical or psychological injuries were non-minor or that pre-existing conditions precluded his recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's insurer's examinations, which concluded the applicant suffered no psychological impairments and only minor physical injuries.

As the MIG limits had been exhausted, the proposed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and several treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to submit a disability certificate within the required 104-week period, precluding entitlement to the non-earner benefit.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence or submissions to demonstrate that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

This application sought court approval for a $30,000 accident benefit settlement for a minor, Elliot Mezzatesta, whose mother died in a motor vehicle accident.

The settlement covered past and future medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The court found the settlement to be in the minor's best interest, considering his ineligibility for weekly disability benefits and catastrophic designation, and the consumption of available limits.

Legal fees were also approved.

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) and the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the issue of whether the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor was already determined in a 2020 Tribunal decision and was therefore subject to res judicata.

The Tribunal declined to waive res judicata, finding no new evidence to impeach the original decision.

The Tribunal also concluded that the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic services and a chronic pain assessment were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for settlement and fee approval in a certified class proceeding against the defendant developer regarding abortive purchases of hotel condominium units.

The court approved the $5.75 million settlement as fair and reasonable, noting it was a modest success given the litigation risks.

The court also approved class counsel's fee of $2.2 million, with $1.25 million payable immediately and a $950,000 holdback pending final distribution.

A motion by former, disqualified class counsel to approve a fee-sharing agreement with current class counsel was dismissed, as the former counsel had been disqualified, assumed no ongoing risk, and provided no services under the current retainer.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought the cost of an accounting report used to calculate her income replacement benefit (IRB).

The insurer denied the cost, arguing the report was not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's IRB calculation as a salaried employee was straightforward and did not necessitate an accounting report.

Furthermore, the report was obtained prematurely before any dispute over IRB quantum or entitlement had arisen.

The parties in a certified class proceeding regarding purchasers of hotel units in the Trump Tower sought a consent order approving the form and content of the proposed Notice of Settlement Approval Hearing.

The court reviewed the proposed notice plan, which included direct mail, email, a dedicated website, and a Facebook page to reach geographically dispersed class members.

Finding the notice and notice plan satisfactory under section 27.1(8) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, the court granted the order.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike a jury notice due to court availability issues in Kingston, while the defendant brought a motion to adjourn the trial so it could be heard together with a separate action arising from a subsequent 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The court conditionally struck the jury notice, noting that criminal trials take priority and a civil jury trial was unlikely to proceed as scheduled.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion to adjourn, finding that delaying a 2012 accident claim by several more years to allow the 2018 action to catch up would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiffs.

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

The insurer determined her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied funding for physiotherapy and occupational therapy beyond the $3,500 limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had sustained a head injury, removing her from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for the disputed treatment plans, finding the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The claim for an award under Regulation 664 was also dismissed, as there was insufficient evidence of unreasonable delay or bad faith by the insurer.