Alfred Kwinter

The defendants moved to dismiss the proposed class proceeding for delay under s. 29.1 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

The plaintiffs did not oppose the dismissal but requested a 60-90 day delay of the effective date to locate new representative plaintiffs for a fresh action.

The court held that s. 29.1 is a mandatory provision and the court lacks discretion to delay the effective date of the dismissal.

The motion to dismiss was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The respondent denied the catastrophic designation, alleging the applicant was malingering, and denied treatment plans for chiropractic care and assessments.

The Tribunal found the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment, preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts over the respondent's neuropsychologist, who used outdated tests and viewed her role as a 'detective'.

The Tribunal denied the chiropractic treatment plan as it was largely outside the scope of chiropractic practice.

The cost of a neuropsychological assessment was approved as reasonable and necessary, while a triage assessment was denied.

Following a decision on motions relating to an insurance appraisal process, both parties sought costs.

The court found that while success was somewhat divided, the defendant was the more successful party overall.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $6,547.04 to the defendant in the cause.

The defendant insurer brought a motion to appoint an appraiser on behalf of the plaintiff insureds under s. 128 of the Insurance Act following a residential fire.

The plaintiffs brought a responding motion seeking declarations that the appraisal proceed without regard to policy limits and include damages caused by the insurer's contractors.

The parties agreed on the scope of the appraisal but disagreed on whether the insurer had waived policy limits.

The court appointed the plaintiffs' chosen appraiser, noting its limited jurisdiction under s. 128(5), and ordered the appraisal to proceed without regard to policy limits but without prejudice to any rights or defences under the policy.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision denying his claims for pre-104-week and post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by misapplying the IRB tests and erred in fact by discrediting his medical expert's report.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal tests under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and reasonably weighed the evidence.

The adjudicator noted that the Tribunal was entitled to give less weight to the applicant's expert report because it relied on self-reporting that was inconsistent with the medical records.

The applicant sought a declaration that his homeowner's insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify him in an underlying action arising from an incident at a summer camp.

The underlying claim alleged that the applicant pulled the plaintiff's head back, kneed him, and punched him, pleading both negligence and assault and battery.

The insurer denied coverage based on an intentional acts exclusion.

The court dismissed the application, finding the duty to indemnify was premature and the duty to defend was not triggered because the negligence claim was entirely derivative of the intentional tort of battery, which fell squarely within the policy's exclusion clause.

The applicant sought payment for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically four treatment plans for chiropractic services and a functional abilities assessment, which the insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that two of the treatment plans for passive, facility-based chiropractic services were reasonable and necessary because they relieved the applicant's physical pain, which in turn prevented his psychological injuries from worsening.

However, the Tribunal denied a third treatment plan involving active home-based exercise as it would aggravate his pain, and denied a second functional abilities assessment as duplicative.

The applicant was awarded interest on the approved plans but denied an award for unreasonable delay, as the insurer did not have the critical evidence linking the physical treatment to the psychological injuries until the hearing.

The plaintiff appealed an order of a Master granting a defendant leave to withdraw an admission in a statement of defence that a taxi driver was an employee of the taxi company.

The court applied the three‑part test for withdrawal of admissions under rule 51.05 of the Rules of Civil Procedure requiring a triable issue, inadvertence, and absence of non‑compensable prejudice.

The court held the admission was inadvertent and that the withdrawal would not cause prejudice because the plaintiff could still pursue liability against the taxi company and explore the nature of the relationship through discovery.

The potential loss of access to higher insurance limits did not constitute legal prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant law firms brought an application to declare the respondent a vexatious litigant under s. 140 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The respondent had a history of initiating multiple proceedings against his former lawyers, including solicitor negligence claims and assessments of accounts, while failing to pay numerous costs awards.

The court found the respondent's conduct met the criteria for a vexatious litigant and ordered that he may not institute or continue any proceeding without leave of the court.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action against his insurance company and broker following a house fire.

The trial judge found that the appellant had a financial motive to set the fires, misrepresented his insurance history to the broker, and had the best opportunity to commit the arson.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of credibility, motive, opportunity, or the overwhelming evidence of arson.

The applicant, a passenger on a TTC bus involved in a collision, sought statutory accident benefits including weekly benefits, housekeeping expenses, and a special award.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence unreliable and fraught with misrepresentations, preferring the insurer's medical evidence that the applicant was malingering and did not suffer from chronic pain syndrome or a disabling disc injury.

The claims for benefits were dismissed.

Finding the arbitration to be an abuse of process due to the applicant's deliberate misrepresentations, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay $1,000 in expenses to the insurer.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought weekly income benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Insurer terminated benefits, arguing the Applicant was not employed or on a temporary lay-off at the time of the accident.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant, who had been laid off due to a shortage of work but maintained a reasonable expectation of recall, was on a temporary lay-off at the time of the accident.

The Applicant was deemed eligible for benefits and awarded arbitration expenses.