Alex Kluchuk

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired under Criterion 7 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal had concluded her whole person impairment rating was 49%, falling short of the 55% threshold.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's assessment of a 0% impairment for the spine and its correction of the upper extremity impairment calculation on reconsideration were reasonable and within its statutory authority to apply the AMA Guides.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a consent judgment settling a claim by the plaintiff and his parents.

The defendant argued that the settlement was reached by his insurer's appointed defence counsel without his personal lawyer's involvement, exposing him to liability exceeding his insurance policy limits through surviving crossclaims.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defence counsel had authority under the Ontario Automobile Policy to settle the claim, the settlement was within the scope of that authority, and the defendant failed to meet the legal test to set aside the consent judgment.

The court held that it was not in the interests of justice to set aside the judgment.

A class member, Loyd Mark Noel, brought a motion for permission to opt out of a class proceeding after the specified deadline had passed.

Mr. Noel had inadvertently missed the deadline despite having already commenced an individual lawsuit related to the same incident.

The motion was unopposed by both the class plaintiffs' and defendants' counsel.

The court granted permission, exercising its discretion under section 12 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, finding that the inadvertent error and the existence of an individual action justified the late opt-out, with no adverse impact on the class proceeding.

The defendants moved for security for costs under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure on the basis that the plaintiffs had moved to England and were no longer resident in Ontario.

The court accepted that the threshold requirement under Rule 56.01(1)(a) was met because the plaintiffs resided outside the jurisdiction.

However, after assessing the second stage of the analysis, the court concluded that requiring security would be unjust.

The plaintiffs demonstrated that posting security would cause financial hardship and the court found the personal injury action had strong merits, including a likely finding of liability in a rear-end collision and medical evidence supporting a permanent impairment meeting the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

Balancing the competing interests, the motion for security for costs was dismissed.