Annette Uetrecht-Bain

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2012 motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment and was entitled to non-earner benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criterion 7, nor did she demonstrate the required marked impairments under Criterion 8.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, noting the applicant successfully attends university full-time and maintains part-time employment.

The claims for catastrophic impairment and non-earner benefits were dismissed.

The applicant sought interest on allegedly overdue Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) and an award for unreasonable delay under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide the necessary financial documentation requested by the insurer to calculate the IRB quantum, triggering s. 33(6) of the Schedule, which suspends the insurer's liability to pay.

Consequently, no benefits were overdue, and no interest was payable.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an award, finding the insurer's requests for documentation were reasonable and supported by legitimate accounting reasons.

The court considered a motion by the plaintiff to set aside an administrative dismissal of a personal injury action for delay.

The court reviewed the relevant factors, including the explanation for delay, inadvertence, promptness in bringing the motion, and prejudice to the defendant.

The court found the explanation for delay satisfactory, attributed the delay to counsel rather than the plaintiff, and found no actual or presumed prejudice to the defendant.

The action was reinstated, but no costs were awarded to either party.

The Applicant, who sustained a catastrophic brain injury after being struck by a car as a pedestrian at age 12, sought statutory accident benefits for massage therapy, attendant care benefits (ACBs), and housekeeping and home maintenance (HH) services.

The Tribunal found the massage therapy plans reasonable and necessary, deducting only duplicative form fees.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the Applicant's treating occupational therapist over the insurer's assessor, awarding ACBs at the claimed rate of $546.33 per month.

The Tribunal also found the Applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform pre-accident HH tasks, awarding HH benefits at $100 per week, subject to proof of incurred expenses.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments.

The applicant sought entitlement to a TENS machine for his foot and leg following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had approved a TENS machine for the applicant's back but denied the second machine due to a lack of supporting medical evidence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the second TENS machine was reasonable and necessary, as the medical documentation only recommended a TENS machine for his back.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was payable.

The City of Toronto brought a motion to dismiss a claim for injurious affection arising from sewer repair works.

The City argued the claim was barred due to insufficient notice under s. 22(1) of the Expropriations Act, the expiry of the limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, and the doctrine of laches.

The Ontario Land Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the claimants provided sufficient notice via email in 2011 and subsequent communications.

The Tribunal also held that the Limitations Act, 2002 does not apply to Expropriations Act claims, and the doctrine of laches was inapplicable given the ongoing communications and lack of prejudice to the City.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological injuries sustained after her husband was struck by a vehicle insured by the respondent.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not an 'insured person' under section 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not a named insured, specified driver, or spouse of a named insured under the policy.

Furthermore, the Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, concluding that the applicant's injuries arose from caring for her husband rather than the direct use or operation of an automobile.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a psychological condition resulting from a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer argued the applicant was malingering and that any impairment stemmed from a prior 2011 accident.

Despite evidence of the applicant deliberately frustrating the respondent's psychological assessments, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's neuropsychiatrist, finding a marked deterioration in the applicant's mental health.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a Class 4 marked impairment in three spheres and that, but for the 2014 accident exacerbating his pre-existing condition, he would not have sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and a co-defendant's crossclaim in a motor vehicle personal injury action.

The moving parties relied on an expert report attached to an affidavit from an associate lawyer.

The court gave no weight to the expert report because it was provided via information and belief, depriving the responding parties of the opportunity to cross-examine the expert.

Finding three conflicting accounts of the accident and substantial issues of credibility and reliability, the court concluded there were genuine issues requiring a trial and dismissed the motion.

The Defendants Kevin Philpott and Mark Philpott sought costs after a partially successful motion where the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim was struck with leave to amend, but their primary request to dismiss the action as an abuse of process was denied.

The court characterized the defendants' victory as 'pyrrhic' due to their failure on the abuse of process argument and their lawyer's conduct in a companion action.

Considering the procedural issues from both parties, the court ordered costs in the cause, fixed at $8,500, rejecting the defendants' request for substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants, Kevin and Mark Philpott, moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action as an abuse of process or for failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The court found that the action was not an abuse of process, rejecting the re-litigation and circumvention arguments.

However, the court determined that the Statement of Claim failed to properly plead reasonable causes of action for fraud, corporate oppression, and negligence.

Consequently, the Statement of Claim was struck in its entirety with leave to amend.

The parties brought cross-motions in an arbitration for income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer sought a production order and an order compelling the applicant to attend five insurer examinations.

The applicant sought interim income replacement benefits, alleging the insurer failed to comply with termination provisions.

The arbitrator granted the production order and found a reasonable relationship between the requested assessments and the issues in dispute, but required the applicant to obtain medical clearance from his family physician and cardiologist before proceeding due to his recent heart attack.

The applicant's motion for interim benefits was dismissed, as the insurer's termination notice was found to be compliant.