Charles Gluckstein

The applicant insurer sought a stay of an interlocutory scheduling order made by the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) denying an adjournment of a complex catastrophic impairment hearing.

The Divisional Court found exceptional circumstances justifying intervention, noting the LAT's decision was unreasonable and failed to balance institutional concerns with the legitimate interests of the parties and their counsel's availability.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court granted the stay, vacated the scheduled hearing dates, and directed the LAT to reschedule the hearing to mutually available dates.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits and funding for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the attendant care expenses were incurred pursuant to s. 3(7)(e) of the Schedule, and medical evidence indicated she had returned to her personal care and housekeeping tasks.

The Tribunal also denied the treatment plan for chiropractic services, finding the cost excessive and the treatment not reasonable and necessary given the applicant's pre-existing conditions and lack of functional improvement from past treatments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments allegedly sustained as a result of her mother's involvement in a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed entitlement to four treatment plans (OCF-18s) for vocational, academic, social rehabilitation, and psychological services.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to address any accident-related impairments.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's post-accident complaints were not significantly different from her pre-accident mental health and well-being.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments allegedly resulting from her mother's motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed entitlement to social rehabilitation counselling and vocational/academic counselling.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological symptoms were primarily related to pre-existing factors, including her parents' separation and the loss of her grandfather, rather than the accident.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to address accident-related impairments.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments allegedly sustained after her mother was injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed entitlement to three treatment plans for social rehabilitation and vocational/academic counselling.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting that her pre-existing psychological issues and family circumstances were the primary cause of her impairments, and that her accident-related symptoms had resolved.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for occupational therapy, chiropractic services, and Botox injections.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as her goals for occupational therapy were largely met, there was insufficient evidence supporting the need for further chiropractic services, and the Botox injections were recommended by a social worker without the necessary qualifications and contrary to a neurologist's recommendations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment plans, which the respondent insurer denied.

The adjudicator found that the medical evidence, including clinical notes and psychological assessments, demonstrated the applicant continued to experience accident-related pain and physical impairments.

The respondent's reliance on a three-year-old physiatry assessment and speculation about life events causing the pain were rejected.

The Tribunal concluded the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to provide pain relief and improve functionality, granting the application in its entirety with interest.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits for a period beginning August 1, 2016.

The respondent argued the claim was barred by res judicata due to a prior FSCO arbitration decision that found no benefits were payable beyond December 31, 2013.

The Tribunal held that res judicata did not apply because the current claim was for a new period, based on new Form 1 assessments not considered by the FSCO arbitrator, and the Schedule permits ongoing applications for attendant care benefits when circumstances change.

The application was permitted to proceed to a hearing on the merits.

The respondent insurer brought a motion seeking the production of 36 documents, including medical and employment records, relying on a case conference order that required the applicant to produce 'all relevant documents as necessary'.

The adjudicator dismissed the motion, finding that the phrase in the order referred only to specific hospital and ambulance reports previously discussed.

The adjudicator noted that the respondent failed to explain the relevance of the requested documents and that it was not open to the respondent to seek medical records to justify previously denied benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought enhanced statutory accident benefits, claiming she suffered a catastrophic impairment due to a brain injury resulting in a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 9 or less.

The respondent argued the low GCS scores were caused by intubation and sedation rather than brain impairment.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's brain impairment and lowered GCS scores were directly caused by the brain injury and hypovolaemia resulting from the accident.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment and is entitled to enhanced benefits.

The moving parties sought partial summary judgment declaring that a Vespa involved in a motor vehicle accident was insured under the "newly acquired automobile" provision of the Standard Automobile Policy (OAP 1).

The court examined whether the insured satisfied the preconditions of s. 2.2.1, including whether the insurer insured all automobiles owned by the insured and whether any additional premium was paid.

The evidence showed the insured owned other automobiles, including a vehicle insured abroad and two motorcycles, that were not insured by the insurer.

The court held these vehicles fell within the statutory definition of "automobile", meaning the insured did not meet the requirement that all owned automobiles be insured by the same insurer.

As a result, the Vespa was not insured under the OAP provision and the statutory bar in s. 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act prevented the insured from pursuing damages against the other driver.

The minor appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Quebec while a resident of Ontario.

The appellants sued the at-fault driver and their own insurer under the uninsured motorist coverage of their Ontario automobile policy.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action against the insurer, finding that Quebec's no-fault legislation applied and barred the tort claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under the lex loci delicti rule, Quebec substantive law applied.

Because Quebec's no-fault regime precluded any tort claim against the driver, the appellants were not 'legally entitled to recover' damages from her, which is a precondition for accessing uninsured motorist coverage under s. 265(1) of the Insurance Act.