Charles E. Gluckstein

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired in a 2013 motor vehicle accident, sought payment for an in-home occupational therapy assessment to determine ongoing attendant care and housekeeping needs.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing it was statute-barred under s. 56 of the Schedule because a previous denial was not disputed within two years, and that the assessment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that a 2016 partial settlement agreement did not permanently end the applicant's entitlement to these benefits and no settlement disclosure notice was provided.

The Tribunal concluded the claim was not statute-barred and that the assessment was reasonable and necessary given evidence of changes in the applicant's circumstances.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit, medical cannabis, and osteopathy treatments (including a treadmill and vaporizer).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the non-earner benefit, finding the applicant was still able to perform many self-care and daily living activities.

However, the Tribunal granted the medical benefits for medical cannabis and osteopathy, finding them reasonable and necessary given the applicant's ongoing pain and the recommendations of his treating practitioners.

Interest on overdue payments was also awarded.

The applicant sought expenses following an arbitration decision where he was awarded a portion of the attendant care benefits claimed.

The insurer argued that each party should bear their own expenses since the applicant only achieved partial success.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was required to proceed to arbitration to obtain the benefits awarded and that denying expenses would be unfair, as the award could be consumed by the costs incurred.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant expenses of $11,401.28, calculated at Legal Aid rates.

This supplementary endorsement addresses the costs of an unsuccessful motion for leave to appeal brought by the plaintiff.

The defendants, having been entirely successful, were presumptively entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the amounts claimed by the defendants' counsel to be excessive for a straightforward leave to appeal motion heard in writing, particularly the time allocated for legal research and drafting.

The court significantly reduced the claimed costs, setting a cap for fees on such motions, and awarded specific amounts to each defendant group.

The Applicant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought attendant care benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Insurer denied the benefits, arguing they were not "incurred" because the Applicant's caregivers did not sustain an economic loss.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant's friend, who housed and cared for him while acting as his surety on bail, sustained an economic loss by charging reduced rent and incurring additional grocery and utility costs.

The arbitrator awarded attendant care benefits of $3,526.34 per month for the period the Applicant resided with this friend.

Claims for other periods, including while the Applicant was hospitalized, staying with other family members, or incarcerated, were dismissed due to a lack of evidence of attendant care services provided or economic loss sustained.

The applicant's counsel brought a motion to be removed as solicitors of record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, citing substantial difficulties in communication and an inability to locate the applicant.

The respondent did not oppose the motion.

The arbitrator granted the motion, permitting Gluckstein & Associates LLP to withdraw as solicitors of record.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that a pocket bike operated by the respondent on private property was an automobile, entitling her to statutory accident benefits.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, holding that under the Off-Road Vehicles Act, an off-road vehicle driven on land occupied by its owner is not required to be insured.

Applying the 'time and circumstances' analysis from Copley v. Kerr Farms Ltd., the pocket bike did not require insurance at the time of the incident and was therefore not an automobile within the meaning of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant was injured while riding a gas-powered 'pocket bike' on private property and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the pocket bike was not an 'automobile' and therefore no 'accident' occurred.

The arbitrator found that the pocket bike met the definition of an off-road vehicle under the Off-Road Vehicles Act.

Because the owner had previously driven it on lands they did not occupy, it was required to be insured under that Act.

Consequently, it fell within the expanded definition of 'automobile' under section 224(1)(a) of the Insurance Act, meaning the applicant was involved in an accident and entitled to claim benefits.

The appellant, an innocent bystander, was rendered paraplegic after being struck by a bullet fragment during a drive-by shooting.

She brought an action against the unidentified driver of the vehicle and her own automobile insurer under the OPCF 44R Endorsement.

The insurer successfully moved for summary judgment on the basis that the injuries did not arise directly or indirectly from the use or operation of an automobile.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the vehicle was used for an ordinary purpose, the shooting was a distinct and intervening act that broke the chain of causation.