Cezary Paluch

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after falling when the driver of her hired vehicle stepped backwards into her while loading the trunk.

The respondent insurer denied benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant satisfied both the purpose and causation tests, as loading a vehicle is an ordinary use of an automobile and the driver's push was a normal incident of the risk created by such use.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was involved in an accident and is entitled to proceed with her claim.

The applicant was filling his tires with air at a gas station when he was carjacked at gunpoint.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming psychological and physical impairments.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The carjacking was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, and the use or operation of the vehicle was not the dominant feature of the incident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being involved in a carjacking while sitting in a parked vehicle at a gas station.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The carjacking was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, and the use or operation of the vehicle was not the dominant feature of the incident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim, and the applicant applied to the Tribunal.

The respondent argued the application was barred by the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the claim for pre-104 week benefits was statute-barred as it was not filed within two years of the clear denial.

However, applying the discoverability principle from Tomec, the Tribunal held that the limitation period for post-104 week benefits did not run while the applicant's catastrophic impairment designation was stayed and dismissed pending appeal.

Therefore, the claim for post-104 week benefits was not statute-barred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent brought a motion to bar the application on the basis of res judicata, arguing the Tribunal had already determined in a prior proceeding that the accident did not cause the applicant's physical impairments.

The Tribunal found that the four preconditions for res judicata were met and no exceptions applied.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant's request for costs was denied.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal denying him Income Replacement Benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no extricable question of law.

The court held that the adjudicator's findings of fact were supported by the evidence, the correct 'but for' test for causation was applied, and there was no lack of procedural fairness during the hearing.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the respondent insurer.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff’s action on summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff argued the claimed amount was excessive and requested that no costs be ordered, asserting the dispute could have been avoided if the defendant had obtained a current appraisal when the property was sold.

The court held that the core issue had already been litigated and decided against the plaintiff in earlier injunction proceedings and that the plaintiff chose to re-litigate it.

Applying the factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found the requested partial indemnity costs reasonable.

Costs were awarded to the defendant in the amount claimed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her application for a property transfer and child support, arguing the trial judge erred in his conduct of the trial and in finding a separation agreement invalid.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge appropriately assisted the self-represented appellant and ensured a fair trial.

The Court also upheld the finding that the separation agreement was invalid under the Family Law Act and unenforceable because the appellant had not paid the required consideration.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to appeal, alleging procedural inadequacies at trial.

The Court of Appeal refused the application, finding no basis on the record to conclude that any procedural inadequacies occasioned a miscarriage of justice.