Courtney Toomath-West

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision regarding the respondent's entitlement to attendant care benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The LAT had found that the respondent's personal support worker did not need to prove economic loss, as she was providing services in the course of her ordinary employment, even though she was hired after the accident.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review for the LAT's interpretation of the SABS is reasonableness.

The Court found the LAT's interpretation of s. 3(7)(e)(iii)(A) to be reasonable and consistent with the legislative intent to prevent abuse by unqualified family members, rather than to bar legitimate services.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its application for a property tax exemption for premises it leases in four buildings.

The appellant argued that section 10 of the YMCA Act, which exempts 'buildings, lands... of the said association', should be interpreted broadly to include leased premises.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that a leasehold interest is not 'land' or 'property of' the association within the meaning of the Assessment Act and the YMCA Act.

The exemption requires an ownership interest, and the plain meaning of the statute does not extend to leased properties.

The respondents issued a notice of action against the appellant within the two-year limitation period under the Warsaw Convention but failed to serve it within the six-month period under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The master granted an extension of time for service, which was affirmed by the Divisional Court.

The appellant appealed, arguing the claim was extinguished under Article 29 of the Convention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that once a claim is issued within the two-year period, the Convention is satisfied and subsequent procedural requirements, including time for service, are governed by the Ontario Rules.

Four individuals injured in a motor vehicle accident received treatment from a chiropractor, who submitted OCF-23 forms to the appellant insurer.

The appellant argued these forms did not constitute a 'completed application for benefits' under s. 2 of O. Reg. 283/95.

The arbitrator and application judge found that the forms provided sufficient particulars to reasonably assist the insurer with processing the application and assessing the claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that an application need not be on a specific form to trigger the 'pay now, dispute later' obligation, provided it contains sufficient information to commence adjusting the claim.

The appellant insurer appealed a summary judgment decision finding it failed to comply with s. 64(14) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule when terminating the respondent's benefits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the motion judge correctly assessed the issue of compliance.

The Court also upheld the award of compound interest under s. 68 of the Schedule, finding no unusual circumstances to justify a different conclusion.