Christopher Whibbs

The moving party sought summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident at an intersection where the traffic lights were not operating due to a power outage.

The moving party relied on dashboard camera video evidence, which the responding party argued was inadmissible.

The court admitted the video, finding it to be a fair and accurate representation of the events.

Based on the video and the responding party's evidence, the court concluded that the moving party had entered the intersection first and had the right-of-way, and that the responding party failed to yield.

The action was dismissed with costs awarded to the moving party.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a psychological assessment and physiotherapy services.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 cap under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove her chronic pain, fibromyalgia, and psychological impairments were caused by the accident or removed her from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was denied the claimed benefits, interest, and costs.

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the successful respondent sought costs in the amount of $6,343.82.

The appellant did not provide costs submissions.

Considering the straightforward nature of the issues on appeal and the principle of proportionality, the court awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $3,000.

The applicant sought expenses following the settlement of her arbitration claim for prescription medication against her insurer.

The arbitrator assessed the applicant's expenses at $1,500 for fees and $601.22 for disbursements, finding she achieved a greater degree of success in the settlement.

The arbitrator also held that certain pre-arbitration expenses, such as a medical report obtained to respond to an insurer's examination, were incurred 'in respect of the arbitration' under s. 282(11) of the Insurance Act and were therefore recoverable.

Supplementary reasons addressing an outstanding refusal arising from an examination for discovery in a civil action involving a leased vehicle.

The disputed question asked how profit was calculated by the dealership on a leased vehicle.

The court held that while the exact profit earned by the dealership was not directly relevant, the method of calculating profit was relevant to issues concerning ownership, control of the vehicle, and the financial relationships among the dealer, financing company, and manufacturer.

Given the surrounding evidence about the assignment of the lease and payments made, the answer was necessary to understand prior discovery evidence and documents produced.

The witness was therefore required to answer the question regarding how profit is calculated.