Aida Gregorian

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action against the respondents as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The motion judge found the appellants discovered their potential cause of action in May 2006, but did not commence the action until April 2018, well beyond the applicable limitation periods.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion regarding the discovery date and dismissed the appeal, affirming the application of the Limitations Act.

Following a preliminary issue hearing where it was determined that the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' within the meaning of the Schedule, the successful insurer sought its expenses of the arbitration.

The insurer claimed $24,182.62 in costs.

The arbitrator considered the criteria under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

Noting that the applicant was an ODSP recipient and that the insurer's claimed hours were excessive given the nature of the preliminary issue, the arbitrator reduced the legal fees to a 2:1 ratio based on the Legal Aid Tariff.

The applicant was ordered to pay $3,028.22 in expenses.

The applicant claimed he was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the injuries resulted from a physical altercation with the driver of an SUV, not from the use or operation of an automobile.

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony inconsistent with the police and emergency room reports, which indicated no physical contact between the SUV and the bicycle.

The arbitrator concluded that the physical altercation was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, meaning the injuries were not directly caused by the use or operation of a motor vehicle.

The application was dismissed as there was no 'accident' within the meaning of the Schedule.

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

After the commencement of the hearing, the parties engaged in settlement discussions and resolved all issues in dispute.

The Tribunal closed the file.

The Applicant sought arbitration for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Insurer raised a preliminary issue regarding a $3,000 claim for chiropractic treatment submitted via an OCF-6 Expense Form rather than an OCF-18 Treatment Plan.

The Arbitrator found that under sections 38 and 39 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the expenses were improperly submitted because no Treatment Plan was provided and the Insurer had not waived the requirement.

As the Applicant did not participate or provide evidence to the contrary, the Arbitrator concluded there was no valid dispute over which FSCO had jurisdiction.

The Applicant was therefore precluded from proceeding to arbitration on this specific claim.