Benjamin Lee

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, chiropractic services, and various expenses.

The adjudicator first determined that the applicant was barred from proceeding on the issue of catastrophic impairment because he failed to attend a properly noticed insurer's examination.

On the merits, the adjudicator dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding that the applicant's post-accident functional abilities demonstrated he did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The claims for chiropractic services and out-of-pocket expenses were also dismissed, as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary to treat an accident-related injury, with evidence showing his pain was likely a continuation of pre-existing chronic pain.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently denied.

This case involves a three-way insurance company priority dispute concerning accident benefits for a minor, Alyssia Lafontaine-Greenwood, who was 17 at the time of her single-vehicle accident.

The dispute, initially decided by an Arbitrator, centered on whether Gore Mutual (father's insurer), Dominion (mother's insurer), or Certas (driver's insurer) had primary responsibility.

The Arbitrator found Alyssia equally dependent on both parents, making Gore and Dominion jointly responsible.

Gore and Dominion appealed this decision.

The court upheld the Arbitrator's finding, applying the "palpable and overriding error" standard of review for mixed fact and law, and affirmed that non-obligatory contributions from a third party (grandmother) should not be factored into the dependency equation.

The applicant sought $39,377.30 in statutory accident benefits for fertility treatments, arguing that adhesions from surgeries following a 2002 motor vehicle accident caused her difficulty conceiving.

The respondent denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving on a balance of probabilities that the need for fertility treatments was causally related to the accident.

The Tribunal declined to qualify the applicant's family physician as an expert and noted the absence of expert medical evidence linking the adhesions to the fertility issues.

The claims for the medical expenses, an award under Regulation 664, and interest were dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to find the self-represented plaintiff in contempt.

The motion was adjourned because the defendant's counsel filed a 1300-page motion record without a compendium or hyperlinked authorities, violating the court's Notice to the Profession.

The Regional Senior Justice used the endorsement to provide a 12-point guide on effective written advocacy and proper filing practices for virtual hearings, emphasizing the 'less is more' principle.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motorcycle accident, along with entitlement to income replacement benefits, medical benefits, an award, and interest.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under either Criterion 6 or 7 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, preferring the respondent's medical experts and video surveillance evidence over the applicant's experts.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for post-104 week income replacement benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in employment, as he had returned to modified work and performed some DJ work.

The claims for unpaid assessments, assistive devices, an award, and interest were also dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court denied the motion for leave to appeal.

No costs were awarded as the responding party, who was self-represented, did not file a costs outline.

The applicant condominium corporation sought a declaration that a requisition for an owners' meeting and the subsequent notice of meeting delivered by a unit owner were invalid, and an injunction prohibiting the meeting.

The unit owner sought to remove board members and repeal a rule limiting short-term rentals.

The court found the notice of meeting was void because it did not comply with the mandatory notice, form, and timing requirements of the Condominium Act, 1998.

The court granted an interlocutory injunction, finding a serious issue to be tried regarding the validity of the requisition signatures, irreparable harm if the corporation were stripped of its board and management without a transition plan, and the balance of convenience favouring the applicant since an annual general meeting was scheduled shortly thereafter.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff recovered only $2,000 after the application of the statutory deductible and a successful defence threshold motion.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of over $230,000, while the defendants argued they were the successful party and sought $25,000 in costs.

The court found that the plaintiff achieved some success and was entitled to costs, noting the defendants' failure to make any settlement offers and their conduct which unnecessarily lengthened the trial.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court fixed the plaintiff's costs at $40,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries from a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury verdict that awarded modest general damages, the defendants brought a threshold motion seeking a declaration that the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was barred under the Insurance Act.

The court considered the plaintiff's significant pre-existing arthritic condition and the medical evidence on causation.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the motor vehicle accident caused a permanent serious impairment meeting the statutory threshold, largely due to the pre-existing condition and the jury's modest award.

The defence motion was granted.

The defendants sought leave to introduce surveillance evidence for substantive purposes in a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing late disclosure and prejudice.

The court found the defendants breached disclosure obligations under Rules 30.09 and 33.06, particularly regarding waiver of privilege when the evidence was provided to a medical expert.

Applying Rule 53.08, the court determined that significant prejudice to the plaintiff, including impacts on settlement considerations and trial strategy, could not be cured by an adjournment.

Leave to use the surveillance evidence for substantive purposes was denied, though its use for impeachment was not challenged.

The defendants brought a motion to exclude the plaintiff's second orthopedic expert, Dr. Daniel Ogilvie-Harris, arguing that his testimony duplicated that of the plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Robert Luba, and citing prior judicial comments regarding Dr. Ogilvie-Harris's alleged bias.

The plaintiff sought to admit both experts, asserting distinct contributions and the need for a Rule 53 expert to challenge the defence's expert.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, allowing both Dr. Luba to testify as a participant expert and Dr. Ogilvie-Harris as a Rule 53 expert.

The court found that Dr. Ogilvie-Harris's opinion offered significant differences, including addressing the Insurance Act threshold and challenging the defence expert, and ruled that allegations of bias should be addressed in a voir dire.

In a motor vehicle accident action, the plaintiff objected to the defence's expert medical evidence from Dr. Finkelstein, arguing the expert relied on inadmissible surveillance video.

A voir dire was held to determine admissibility.

The court ruled that Dr. Finkelstein could testify, but with conditions: no comment on surveillance in examination-in-chief, and the plaintiff could cross-examine on activities disclosed in evidence or directly on the surveillance (with defence re-examination rights).

The court balanced the probative value of the expert evidence against the potential prejudice from the inadmissible surveillance, noting the expert's opinions were largely independent of the video and foundational facts were already in evidence.

The respondent insurer requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that the applicant was not precluded by s. 61 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule from claiming accident benefits.

The applicant had been injured in a motor vehicle accident while working and initially claimed WSIB benefits before electing to pursue a tort action and accident benefits.

The insurer argued that an election must be made primarily for the purpose of a tort claim, not equally for tort and accident benefits.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, holding that s. 61(2) permits an election made for the equal purposes of pursuing a tort action and claiming accident benefits, provided the tort action is brought in good faith.

The Associate Chair also found no error in the Tribunal's assessment of the tort claim's viability or its weighing of subjective and objective factors.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her claim against herself for statutory vicarious liability as the owner of a vehicle involved in an accident.

The appellant was a passenger in her own vehicle driven by her daughter when the accident occurred in a private parking lot.

The motion judge dismissed the claim on the ground that the accident did not occur on a "highway" as defined in the Highway Traffic Act and therefore section 192(2) of the Act did not apply.

The appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal suggesting the accident occurred at a GO Station parking lot used by the general public.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence and upheld the summary judgment dismissal.

Following a summary judgment motion determined in favour of the third parties, the plaintiff sought costs of $2,815.00 from the defendant for preparation and attendance.

The court found that the plaintiff's counsel provided no satisfactory explanation for late service of materials and failed to comply with the agreed timetable.

Consequently, the court awarded reduced costs to the plaintiff, fixed at $763.00 on a partial indemnity scale, covering only the estimated time for attending the motion.

The Third Parties moved for summary judgment to dismiss claims against them arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The Defendant, Samra, brought a cross-motion to amend her Third Party Claim to allege the Plaintiff, Juneja, was the driver.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the Third Parties' liability, concluding Samra was solely responsible for a precipitous left turn.

The summary judgment motion was granted, dismissing the Third Party Claim, and Samra's cross-motion was dismissed as moot.