Barbara Opalinski

The applicant, a minor, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for occupational therapy, an orthopaedic assessment, and chiropractic services under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's physical impairments had fully healed.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting inconsistencies in the medical evidence and relying on an insurer's examination which concluded the physical impairments had resolved.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain as a result of the accident, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for a chronic pain assessment and a physiotherapy treatment plan, finding them reasonable and necessary, along with interest on overdue payments.

The plaintiff was injured when she fell off an elevated dance floor at a nightclub.

She sued the nightclub, but later learned during discoveries that the landlord may have been involved in renovating the dance floor.

She subsequently sued the landlord, who moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The motion judge found the claim was not discoverable until the discovery of the nightclub's representative.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the landlord's appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the plaintiff had not shown a lack of diligence in investigating the claim.

The applicant's representative brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, as the applicant failed to communicate or attend scheduled pre-hearings.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application for arbitration.

The arbitrator granted the representative's motion to be removed and dismissed the application for arbitration with costs of $950 payable by the applicant, noting the applicant's failure to attend or communicate despite ample notice.

The defendant landlord moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff had sued a nightclub within the limitation period after falling from an elevated dance floor but only later added the landlord after discovering during examinations for discovery that the landlord participated in the design and construction of the stage.

The court considered the discoverability provisions under s. 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002 and the extent of reasonable pre-discovery investigation required of plaintiff’s counsel in occupiers’ liability claims.

The court held that the plaintiff was not required to seek information from adverse parties before discovery where those parties had no obligation to provide it.

The limitation period began when the plaintiff first learned of the landlord’s involvement during discovery, rendering the action timely.

In corporate litigation involving a tavern business, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their statement of claim and for an order compelling a further and better affidavit of documents and production prior to examinations for discovery.

The defendants brought a cross‑motion for leave to amend their defence and counterclaim.

The court held that allegations in a statement of claim generally do not constitute “admissions” within the meaning of Rule 51.05 and therefore the plaintiffs’ proposed amendments were governed by Rule 26.01.

Leave to amend was granted subject to minor clarifying revisions and payment of limited “costs thrown away,” rendering the defendants’ motion moot.

On the production motion, the court criticized both parties for failing to comply with Rule 29.1 discovery planning obligations and ordered limited additional production while refusing broader relief without prejudice pending a discovery plan and examinations.