Laura Emmett

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a non-earner benefit and various treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) from the respondent insurer.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting the lack of medical evidence and the late submission of a disability certificate.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's physical injuries were soft-tissue in nature and his psychological complaints did not warrant removal from the MIG.

As the $3,500 treatment limit for minor injuries had been exhausted, the application for further treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that her physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's section 44 assessors over the applicant's treating practitioners and psychological report.

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

The claim for IRBs was also dismissed as the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The applicant sought medical benefits for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries, including a partial thickness rotator cuff tear and pre-existing back pain, did not warrant removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The respondent insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was driving with a suspended licence at the time of the accident.

The applicant argued he was unaware of the suspension and raised a defence of due diligence.

The Tribunal held that s. 31(1)(a)(ii) of the Schedule clearly bars an IRB claim if the driver did not hold a valid licence, regardless of whether they knew or ought to have known of the suspension.

The applicant's claim for an IRB was therefore barred.

The respondent insurer sought reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found that the applicant was a dependent of his mother and therefore an insured under her policy.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, holding that under Rule 18.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, reconsideration is only available for decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

Because the preliminary issue decision allowed the applicant's claim to proceed, it was not a final disposition, and the request was premature.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $12,763.00 in lost educational expenses under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, arguing that OSAP grants converted to loans due to his inability to attend college.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the claimed expenses, specifically for room and board, were incurred after the accident rather than before it, failing to meet the criteria under section 21(5) of the Schedule.

Claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits under his mother's insurance policy following the death of his brother in a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied coverage, arguing the applicant was not a 'dependant' of his mother at the time of the accident.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's financial needs, earning capacity, and reliance on his mother for care and support over a one-year period.

Despite the applicant having recently secured employment and moved into an apartment, the Tribunal found he remained principally dependent on his mother for financial support and care.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to process the applicant's claim for benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and medical benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to ongoing income replacement benefits or attendant care benefits, as the medical evidence did not support a substantial inability to perform essential tasks or a need for ongoing care.

The Tribunal also denied requests for psychological and chronic pain assessments.

However, the Tribunal found that orthotic devices were reasonable and necessary, ordering the respondent to pay for them.

Claims for an award and costs were dismissed.

Appeal from a summary judgment dismissing a negligence action brought by the estate and family members of a deceased man who died in a motor vehicle accident.

The motion judge applied the doctrine of emergency to find that the driver, who was engaged in a drug deal, acted reasonably when he drove away while the deceased was attempting to enter the vehicle, resulting in the deceased's death.

The majority upheld the summary judgment, finding no error in the application of the emergency doctrine.

Justice Pepall dissented, arguing that the motion judge failed to properly analyze the elements of the emergency doctrine and that material inconsistencies in the evidence should have precluded summary judgment.

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

At the arbitration hearing, the applicant failed to appear, and her representative brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, having lost contact with the applicant for several months.

The arbitrator granted the representative's motion to withdraw and subsequently dismissed the application for arbitration due to the applicant's absence.

The insurer was awarded expenses of $4,500 plus HST, as the applicant's failure to complete a prior tentative settlement and unexplained absence caused the insurer to incur unnecessary preparation costs.

The court issued a corrigendum to correct and add the names of counsel for the plaintiffs and defendants in the original Reasons for Judgment issued on December 7, 2016.

All other contents of the original judgment remain unchanged.

The plaintiff was rendered a quadriplegic after the minivan he was a passenger in was struck by a vehicle driven by the defendant Ellis at an intersection.

Ellis had stopped at a stop sign rather than the faded stop line, resulting in poor sightlines, and pulled into the intersection when it was unsafe.

The court found the City of Hamilton 50% liable for failing to maintain the stop line, which created an unreasonable risk of harm.

Ellis was found 50% liable for failing to ensure it was safe to proceed.

Claims against the driver of the minivan were dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to restore a personal injury action to the trial list, discontinue the Family Law Act claims of two siblings, and remove counsel of record for the parents.

The defendants consented to the discontinuance but sought a condition allowing them to examine the siblings for discovery, arguing their evidence was necessary to understand the injured plaintiff's pre-accident condition given his traumatic brain injury and young age at the time of the accident.

The court granted the discontinuance on the condition that the defendants may examine the siblings for discovery, distinguishing prior case law due to the unique circumstances and lack of alternative sources for the information.

The court also granted the order removing counsel of record for the parents.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment against a third‑party insurer seeking a declaration that the third‑party insurer provided valid coverage to the tortfeasor at the time of a motor vehicle accident.

The moving party argued the third‑party insurer had improperly denied coverage after cancelling the policy prior to the accident.

The court held that the doctrine of privity prevented the moving insurer from asserting contractual rights under the policy because it was not a party to the contract and had not obtained an assignment of rights from the insured.

Further, under s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act, a third party may only proceed directly against an insurer after obtaining judgment against the insured.

As no judgment or assignment existed, the motion for summary judgment was premature and dismissed.