Christian Genova

The applicant, who was deemed catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident, sought various statutory accident benefits including assistive devices, a hot tub, a family gym membership, and physiotherapy services.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding with two treatment plans because she failed to attend scheduled insurer examinations without a reasonable explanation.

For the remaining substantive issues, the Tribunal dismissed the claims, finding the applicant failed to meet her burden to demonstrate that the proposed treatments and devices were reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied three treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding to a hearing for one treatment plan submitted more than 260 weeks after the accident, as there was insufficient evidence of optional benefits or catastrophic impairment.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the other two treatment plans for chiropractic treatment, as the medical evidence established they were reasonable and necessary to address ongoing pain and functional limitations caused by the accident.

The applicant was also awarded interest on the overdue benefits.

The defendant brought a motion under Rule 21.01 to determine whether the plaintiff was barred from bringing a tort action under s. 267.6(1) of the Insurance Act for operating an uninsured dirt bike at the time of the collision.

The collision occurred on private property.

The court held that the plaintiff was not barred from suing, as the prohibition under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act only applies to uninsured vehicles operated on a highway at the time of the incident.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add the statutory third party insurer as a defendant and to seek declaratory relief regarding coverage.

The insurer opposed the motion, arguing it would cause prejudice, was untenable in law, and constituted an abuse of process that would eviscerate an insurer's statutory right to defend claims.

The court rejected these arguments, finding no non-compensable prejudice, that the declaratory relief sought had practical utility, and that the proposed amendments did not constitute an abuse of process.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff sued the owners, property managers, and cleaning contractors of a shopping mall after slipping and falling near the food court.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no objective evidence of a hazard on the floor.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's direct evidence that her foot stuck to a sticky substance raised a genuine issue for trial.

Furthermore, the court found insufficient evidence on the record to determine whether the defendants had a reasonable system of inspection and maintenance in place.

The defendant trampoline park moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claim based on a signed waiver of liability.

The plaintiff suffered a knee injury while playing trampoline dodgeball and alleged the defendant was negligent in failing to supervise the game and follow its own injury policies.

The court found that the plaintiff had explicitly signed a waiver that clearly excluded liability for negligence, including the failure of employees to give complete instructions or protect participants from risks.

The court held the waiver was enforceable and dismissed the action.