Ammar Hussein

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to deliver a further and better affidavit of documents, arguing that the plaintiff's Schedule A failed to individually list and uniquely number documents within collections.

The court granted the motion, holding that listing files or bundles of documents under a single item, even if page-numbered, is insufficient under Rule 30.03(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court emphasized that individual documents must be uniquely identified to facilitate discovery and trial processes, and that the burden of proper identification rests with the producing party.

Examinations for discovery were postponed.

The applicant grandmother brought an application for specified access to her 12-year-old granddaughter.

The respondent mother opposed specified access, requesting that any access be at her sole discretion.

The matter proceeded as a focused hearing treated as a summary judgment motion.

The court found a history of significant conflict and dysfunction between the grandmother and the mother, including unfounded reports made by the grandmother to the Children's Aid Society.

Applying the test for grandparent access, the court held that the mother was not acting arbitrarily in limiting access and that court-ordered specified access would place the child in the middle of the conflict, contrary to her best interests.

The court ordered that the grandmother have access solely at the discretion of the mother, consistent with the child's wishes.

The applicant sought judicial review of two costs orders made by FSCO adjudicators after her claim for a $1,378.68 medical assessment expense was dismissed due to her failure to attend a required medical examination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application regarding the first-instance costs order as premature because an internal appeal was still pending.

The court dismissed the application regarding the appeal costs order on its merits, finding the Director's Delegate's decision was reasonable, procedurally fair, and justified given the applicant's complete lack of success and conduct that prolonged the proceedings.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits from the Insurer.

The underlying arbitration was dismissed because the Applicant failed to attend section 44 insurer examinations.

In this expense hearing, both parties sought their expenses.

The Arbitrator found that the Insurer was completely successful in the preliminary issue hearing and was entitled to its expenses.

The Arbitrator awarded the Insurer $5,419.07 in legal fees and disbursements, taking into consideration principles of reasonableness, consumer protection, and access to justice.

The appellant's appeal of an arbitrator's order was previously dismissed.

The respondent insurer sought its expenses of the appeal.

The Director's Delegate considered the criteria under section 12(2) of the Expense Regulation, noting the respondent's complete success and the conduct of the appellant's representative which unnecessarily prolonged the hearing and post-hearing process.

The Delegate rejected the appellant's arguments regarding proportionality and access to justice, finding them inapplicable or outweighed by the representative's conduct.

The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's appeal expenses fixed at $3,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's order dismissing her arbitration for statutory accident benefits due to her failure to attend insurer examinations (IEs).

The appellant argued the Arbitrator breached procedural fairness, the IEs were not reasonably necessary, the insurer was precluded from relying on the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), and the IE notices lacked valid medical reasons.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no breach of procedural fairness and that the insurer had a prima facie right to request the IEs.

The Delegate upheld the Arbitrator's findings that the insurer did not waive its right to rely on the MIG by approving treatment within the $3,500 limit, and that the IE notices provided sufficient medical reasons by asserting the injuries fell within the MIG definition.

Preclusion from arbitration was confirmed as the mandatory remedy under section 55 of the Schedule.

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

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and requested the applicant attend several insurer examinations.

The applicant failed to attend the examinations, arguing the notices did not provide sufficient medical reasons.

The Tribunal found the notices were sufficient and that the applicant failed to comply with section 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Consequently, the application was dismissed pursuant to section 55.

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

The Insurer approved initial treatment under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) but denied subsequent treatment plans, requesting the Applicant attend Insurer's Examinations (IEs) to determine if her injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Applicant refused to attend the IEs, arguing the Insurer failed to provide sufficient medical reasons in its notices.

The Arbitrator found that the Insurer's notices complied with the Schedule by stating it had reviewed the MIG and the treating practitioner's opinion and found no compelling evidence that the impairment was not predominantly a minor injury.

Because the Applicant failed to attend the mandatory IEs without a reasonable excuse, and given the substantial passage of time since the accident, she was precluded from proceeding to arbitration under section 55(2) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.