Christina Polano

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

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

The insurer suspended his income replacement benefits after an insurer's psychological assessment was terminated prematurely.

The insurer argued the applicant abruptly left, while the applicant claimed the assessor was harsh and unaccommodating.

The arbitrator found that the assessor created an insensitive and critical atmosphere, which precipitated the termination of the assessment.

The arbitrator concluded that the assessment was not a reasonable examination to which the applicant should be required to submit, and that he had a reasonable excuse for refusing further assessment with that specific doctor.

The suspension of benefits was lifted, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision denying him income replacement benefits and ordering repayment of benefits paid after January 28, 2004.

The appellant argued the insurer lacked a basis for its termination notice because the medical reports were allegedly received after the notice was sent.

The Director's Delegate rejected this argument, finding the reports were faxed prior to the notice.

The Delegate also found no error in the arbitrator's assessment of the appellant's credibility, employment status, and medical evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The insurer requested a preliminary issue hearing to stay the applicant's arbitration until she attended an insurer's examination under section 42 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant's income replacement benefits had been terminated in April 2004.

Despite numerous requests for reinstatement supported by medical evidence of a worsening condition and subsequent surgery, the insurer did not request an examination until three months before the scheduled arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's request was not reasonably necessary to adjust the file, but rather an attempt to bolster its case for the upcoming arbitration.

The insurer's request was dismissed, and the arbitration was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for housekeeping and home maintenance expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator proceeded in his absence and dismissed the claim, finding insufficient evidence to establish a substantial inability to perform pre-accident housekeeping duties.

The insurer's request to add claims for its expenses and for a frivolous proceeding was denied due to lack of notice to the applicant.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after a tenant mistakenly drove her vehicle into the side of his house.

The impact caused a loud noise and shaking, prompting the applicant to panic and run to check on his children.

While running down the stairs, he tripped and fell, sustaining injuries.

The insurer denied benefits, arguing the injuries were not caused by an 'accident' as defined in the Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the car hitting the house directly caused the applicant's injuries, as the sequence of events was one continuous incident without an intervening act.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant was involved in an accident within the meaning of the Schedule.