Andrew Choi

The Minister of Public and Business Service Delivery, operating the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund, sought to recover pre-arbitration expenses from two insurers who had accepted priority for Statutory Accident Benefits claims without proceeding to arbitration.

The insurers argued that the Fund was required to arbitrate the dispute and that pre-arbitration expenses were not recoverable.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the 'proper case' exception allowed the Fund to seek restitution in court because there was no dispute over the payment of benefits to arbitrate.

The court found that the insurers were unjustly enriched by the Fund's investigative work and ordered them to reimburse the Fund for its pre-arbitration expenses.

The plaintiff was struck by a car while walking home on a highway after a New Year's Eve party.

He sued the driver and later commenced a second action against the OPP and others.

The Crown (HMK) moved for summary judgment, arguing the second action was a nullity for lack of notice under the Proceedings Against the Crown Act, and that a third action commenced after proper notice was statute-barred.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the second action as a nullity but dismissed the motion regarding the third action, finding the plaintiff rebutted the presumption of discovery on the date of the accident.

The court also found a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the police owed a private law duty of care to the plaintiff given their knowledge of the party and intoxicated pedestrians on the highway.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund following a motor vehicle accident.

The Fund denied benefits on the basis that the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Ontario at the time of the accident, pursuant to s. 25(1) of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, a citizen of China and a refugee protection claimant subject to a conditional removal order, had temporary ties to Ontario and failed to produce material evidence regarding his immigration status.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a personal support worker struck by a motor vehicle as a pedestrian, sought statutory accident benefits including an income replacement benefit (IRB), a chronic pain assessment, and psychological treatment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from receiving an IRB for the initial period because she failed to submit a disability certificate until September 2019.

For the subsequent periods, she failed to prove a substantial or complete inability to work, as her family physician's notes indicated she was able to work after November 2018 and she provided no functional abilities evaluation.

The Tribunal also denied the chronic pain assessment and the disputed portion of the psychological treatment plan, finding them not reasonable or necessary based on the medical evidence.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for accident benefits.

The LAT adjudicator had found the appellant credible but concluded there was insufficient corroborating evidence to prove his injuries were caused by a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and holding that the adjudicator's findings of fact were amply supported by the record.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found he had not established on a balance of probabilities that he was struck by a vehicle.

The applicant argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness by finding him credible but still dismissing the claim, and made errors of law in weighing medical and police records.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, holding that credibility is distinct from reliability and does not automatically discharge the burden of proof.

The Tribunal found no error in the original assessment that the corroborating evidence was insufficient to prove an accident occurred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the denial of attendant care benefits and several treatment plans for physiotherapy and a gym membership.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits because the expenses were not incurred and the required Form 1 was not submitted prior to the claim period.

The Tribunal granted three of the disputed physiotherapy treatment plans, finding one payable due to the insurer's failure to provide medical reasons for denial under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, and two others reasonable and necessary based on medical evidence of ongoing shoulder limitations.

The remaining treatment plans were dismissed as the applicant failed to meet the evidentiary burden to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The respondent applied for statutory accident benefits after falling and fracturing her knee while attempting to enter a vehicle.

The applicant, the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund, disputed that the incident met the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, arguing the fall was caused by the respondent's pre-existing medical conditions and not the use or operation of an automobile.

The Tribunal found that the incident met both the purpose and causation tests, as the respondent fell while getting into the vehicle when the driver accidentally shifted gears, causing the car to move forward.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent was involved in an accident and is entitled to claim accident benefits.

The applicant, the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund, sought repayment of statutory accident benefits paid to the respondent, alleging wilful misrepresentation.

The respondent did not attend the hearing.

The adjudicator found that the respondent had misrepresented his employment status and that he was not actually struck by a vehicle, as determined in prior arbitration and criminal proceedings.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to repay $28,600.00 for income replacement benefits and $4,954.05 for prescription medication, plus interest.

The defendants in a motor vehicle collision action brought a third party claim against the Crown (HMQ) for negligent road maintenance.

The defendants moved to compel HMQ to provide documentary and oral discovery.

HMQ argued that the claim was barred by the WSIA and the PTHIA, and that there is no right of discovery against the Crown under the PTHIA.

The court held that s. 33(7) of the PTHIA contemplates discovery rights against the Crown and that HMQ had also voluntarily agreed to discovery.

HMQ was ordered to deliver its list of documents and attend an examination for discovery.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after falling while rollerblading to avoid a van that failed to yield.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Schedule because there was no contact with a vehicle and a police officer's statement contradicted the applicant's version of events.

The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence over the officer's delayed statement, finding that the use or operation of a motor vehicle directly caused the impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the incident met the causation test and qualified as an accident.

The appellant was injured in an altercation outside a bar where he was assaulted and subsequently struck by the assailants' departing vehicle.

He appealed an arbitrator's decision denying his claims for income replacement benefits and further medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) cap.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's findings that only the vehicle strike constituted an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, that the appellant failed to prove pre-accident employment, and that his soft tissue injuries fell within the MIG.

The appeal was dismissed, save for a correction to the arbitrator's costs order.

The appellants' counsel failed to appear for the appeal hearing, with an assistant citing counsel's illness.

The Court of Appeal noted a lack of supporting medical documentation and expressed serious doubts about the veracity of counsel's position.

The court refused a request for an adjournment, dismissed the appeal as abandoned, and awarded costs to the respondents.