7 total
Application for statutory accident benefits dismissed due to applicant's failure to attend the arbitration hearing.
The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
After failing to attend multiple pre-hearings, an arbitration hearing was scheduled.
The applicant failed to appear at the hearing.
The arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration due to the applicant's failure to meet the burden of proving his claim and awarded $500 in expenses to the insurer.
Application for accident benefits dismissed after applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing.
After failing to attend multiple pre-hearings, the applicant also failed to appear at the scheduled arbitration hearing.
The arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration due to the applicant's failure to meet the burden of proving her claim.
The insurer was awarded $500 in expenses.
Insurer awarded $4,059.84 in expenses following successful defence of accident benefits claims.
Following the dismissal of the applicants' claims for non-earner benefits, the insurer sought its expenses of the arbitration.
The arbitrator found the insurer was entitled to its expenses based on its complete success, despite some conduct that prolonged the hearing.
The insurer voluntarily reduced its claim to $5,000 inclusive of taxes and disbursements.
After disallowing a non-recoverable disbursement for reporting services, the arbitrator ordered each applicant to pay the insurer $2,029.92 in expenses.
Applications for non-earner benefits dismissed; applicants failed to prove psychological injury from mother's accident.
The applicants, twin brothers who were 11 years old at the time, claimed non-earner benefits (NEBs) alleging they suffered psychological or mental injuries as a result of their mother's physical injuries in a 2004 motor vehicle accident.
The arbitrator found that while the applicants' lives changed after the accident, primarily due to their mother's condition and their parents' subsequent separation, they failed to prove they sustained a psychological or mental injury within 104 weeks of the accident.
Furthermore, their post-accident school performance and overall function were consistent with their pre-accident demonstrated potential.
The applications for NEBs were dismissed.
Claim for income replacement benefits dismissed as applicant failed to prove substantial inability to work.
The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she was unable to work as a bottle packer due to physical pain and depression.
The insurer denied the benefits, relying on independent medical examinations by a physiatrist and a neuropsychologist who found no physical or cognitive limitations preventing her from working, and suggested she was feigning impairment.
The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the insurer's assessors over the applicant's subjective complaints and her family physician's support, concluding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a substantial inability to perform her employment duties.
The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; failure to invest and account for funds constituted defalcation surviving bankruptcy discharge.
The appellants appealed a declaration that the respondent's claims were not released by bankruptcy due to defalcation under s. 178(1)(b) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants' failure to invest funds as agreed, failure to recover them, and failure to account for them amounted to serious misconduct and moral turpitude within a fiduciary relationship, satisfying the test for defalcation.
Appeal from Master's dismissal of a motion to vary an order denied; no errors found.
The appellant appealed a Master's decision dismissing his motion to vary an order under Rule 59.06 following a construction lien trial.
The Divisional Court found that the Master made no error of law, did not exercise his discretion improperly, and made no palpable or overriding error.
The Master correctly concluded there was no fresh evidence, no accidental slip regarding the Scott Schedules, and no enforceable fixed-price contract between the parties.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.
