Chris Nicolis

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her motor vehicle negligence action arising from a collision at an intersection in London, Ontario.

The appellant's vehicle struck the respondent's pickup truck after the appellant proceeded through a stop sign.

The motion judge found the respondent was not speeding and could not see the appellant's vehicle due to an intervening cement truck.

The appellant argued the respondent should have been more cautious given the presence of stopped vehicles.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that the respondent had no duty to reduce speed or take extra precautions under the circumstances.

The defendant insurer moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to undergo a neuropsychological examination, arguing the plaintiff had placed his cognitive abilities in issue in his claim for long-term disability benefits.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff had not put his neuropsychological function in issue, none of his treating physicians had recommended such an assessment, and there was no evidence from a medical professional that the examination was necessary.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

The court found that the defendant's motion was reasonably brought and did not warrant substantial indemnity costs under Rule 20.06.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs, allowing the plaintiff's counsel's travel disbursements but reducing the fee element for travel time to one-third.

Costs were fixed at $8,500.

The defendant driver moved for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a pedestrian knock-down collision.

The moving party argued that liability could be determined on the written record without a mini‑trial.

The court held that material credibility conflicts between the plaintiff, the defendant, and an independent witness created genuine issues requiring oral testimony.

Given the conflicting evidence, the statutory burden on drivers in pedestrian collisions under the Highway Traffic Act, and the existence of a jury notice, the court concluded that summary judgment or a mini‑trial would not be proportionate.

The motion was dismissed and the action allowed to proceed to trial.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer issued a denial of income replacement benefits (IRBs) before the applicant had actually claimed them.

More than two years later, the applicant applied for mediation of the IRB claim.

The insurer argued the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period and that the applicant failed to provide timely notice of her intention to apply.

The Arbitrator held that a pre-emptive denial of an unclaimed benefit does not trigger the limitation period.

Furthermore, the applicant was not precluded from claiming IRBs for late notice, as the insurer had received sufficient information early on regarding her recent retirement to begin adjusting the claim but failed to do so.

Following an appeal that increased the appellant's damages award from $236,494.91 to $251,449.46, the award exceeded the respondents' $250,000 offer to settle.

The Court of Appeal held that the ordinary rule for costs should apply.

The court awarded costs to the appellant on a partial indemnity basis, referred those costs for assessment, and awarded $900 for costs submissions at trial.

The appellant was injured when improperly stored metal sheets in her apartment building's storage room fell on her leg, eventually leading to fibromyalgia.

A jury found the respondent landlords negligent but apportioned 75% of the fault to the appellant for contributory negligence.

The jury awarded damages, including $41,000 for non-pecuniary damages.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in instructing the jury to use the upper limit (cap) for non-pecuniary damages as a scale.

The Court substituted an award of $80,000 for non-pecuniary damages but upheld the jury's findings on contributory negligence and apportionment of fault.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding his entitlement to income replacement benefits, both parties sought their appeal expenses.

The Director's Delegate considered the amended expenses criteria under the Insurance Act regulations, which applied retrospectively.

The Delegate found that while the appellant was unsuccessful and raised a new argument late, the appeal involved a novel issue of general importance regarding the interpretation of section 48 of the SABS.

Consequently, neither party was awarded expenses, and they were ordered to bear their own costs.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

In his application, he falsely stated he was unemployed to protect his workers' compensation benefits.

The insurer assessed his claim for non-earner benefits and incurred expenses before denying the claim.

The appellant later revealed his true employment status and sought income replacement benefits.

The insurer refused to pay, relying on section 48 of the SABS-1996 for material misrepresentation.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that the misrepresentation of employment status was material to both benefit claims and that section 48 permits an insurer to terminate entitlement to benefits even if no payments have yet been made.

The insurer appealed a preliminary arbitration order that dismissed its motion to stay the arbitration proceeding until the insured attended new insurer examinations with an orthopaedic surgeon and a neuropsychologist.

The Director's Delegate rejected the appeal as premature, finding that the arbitrator's decision was largely fact-based, did not raise novel questions of law, and lacked sufficient merit to justify departing from the usual rule that appeals from preliminary orders should not proceed until all issues in dispute have been decided.

The insurer brought a motion in an accident benefits arbitration seeking production of the applicant's discovery transcript and defence medical examination reports from a related tort action, as well as an order requiring the applicant to attend a psychiatric examination.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, holding that the implied undertaking rule protected the tort documents from production in the arbitration, as the insurer failed to show that the interests of justice outweighed the applicant's privacy interests.

The arbitrator also found that a psychiatric examination was not reasonably required, given the late stage of the proceedings and the applicant's willingness to attend a psychological examination.