Darrell P. March

The applicant, who suffered catastrophic psychological injuries after a vehicle struck and killed her friend while they were walking, sought various statutory accident benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to treatment plans for nutritional counselling (including produce boxes), drum lessons, and OCF-18 completion fees, but denied the enhanced hourly rate for a psychotherapist.

The Tribunal also granted a section 10 award of $2,585.20 against the respondent for egregiously proceeding with an in-home attendant care assessment despite the applicant's explicit refusal to consent.

The applicants sought statutory accident benefits for psychological injuries sustained after their family member witnessed a fatal motor vehicle accident.

In a previous preliminary issue decision, the Tribunal found the applicants were not 'insured persons' under the Schedule because the family member did not sustain a physical injury.

The applicants brought a new application raising a constitutional challenge to the Schedule and tendering new medical reports.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, holding it was barred by res judicata.

The Tribunal found the constitutional issue could have been raised previously, and the new medical reports did not conclusively impeach the original finding that no physical injury was sustained.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for failing to attend an examination for discovery, the defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The self-represented plaintiff made unsubstantiated allegations of fraud against the defendant's counsel and filed a complaint against the judge.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct since August 2021 to be reprehensible, vexatious, and unnecessarily lengthening the proceeding.

The court awarded the defendant costs of $47,000, reflecting substantial indemnity costs for the period after August 2021 and partial indemnity costs prior to that date.

The applicant and respondent both sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and awarded the applicant $2,000 in costs.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its assessment of her activities of daily living and sought to introduce new evidence regarding her relationship breakdown.

The respondent argued the Tribunal erred in awarding costs based on its counsel's conduct.

The Vice-Chair dismissed both requests, finding no errors of law or fact in the original decision and concluding the new evidence would not have affected the result.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her ongoing income replacement and psychological benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

She argued she was denied procedural fairness because the insurer's psychological expert did not produce raw test data until mid-hearing, and that the LAT erred in finding the insurer made 'best efforts' to produce the file.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the appellant had sufficient time to review the data during a five-week adjournment and cross-examine the expert.

The Court also found the LAT applied the correct legal test for 'best efforts'.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) for the period of September 15, 2016 to March 1, 2017, following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had returned to modified duties as a delivery driver but was subsequently terminated for reasons unrelated to his injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence demonstrating a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment during the disputed period.

The application for IRB, interest, a special award, and costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for the balance of a treatment plan for cognitive behaviour therapy provided by a registered psychotherapist.

The respondent insurer had partially approved the plan at a lower hourly rate, arguing that psychotherapists are not listed in the Professional Services Guideline and should not be paid the same rate as psychologists.

The Tribunal found that the psychotherapist was qualified to provide cognitive behaviour therapy and exercised its discretion to award the same hourly rate ($149.61) as a psychologist or psychological associate under the Guideline.

The applicant was awarded the balance of the treatment plan.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment under the Glasgow Coma Scale following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by excluding video footage of a paramedic at the scene and by allowing the respondent's expert neurologist to give opinion evidence outside his report without permitting the applicant to recall his own expert.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding the video footage had limited probative value and would not have changed the result given the conflicting medical reports.

The adjudicator also found no error in allowing the respondent's expert to comment on inconsistencies in the reports, noting the applicant failed to demonstrate the evidence was false or misleading.

The three applicants were involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and medical rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer denied the claims based on independent medical examinations indicating that the applicants' ongoing impairments were related to pre-existing conditions rather than the accident.

The arbitrator found that none of the applicants suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and that the proposed treatment plans and attendant care were neither reasonable nor necessary.

All claims for benefits were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from her insurer.

The insurer terminated her income replacement benefits and denied medical and rehabilitation benefits, maintaining for nearly three years that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment and, post-104 weeks, a complete inability to engage in suitable employment due to chronic pain.

The arbitrator granted the claimed income replacement benefits, medical benefits, and costs of examinations.

Furthermore, the arbitrator awarded a $25,000 Special Award against the insurer, finding that it had unreasonably delayed and denied benefits by relying on patently flawed medical reports and ignoring credible evidence of the applicant's chronic pain.

The Insurer sought its expenses following an arbitration proceeding where all of the Applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits were dismissed.

The Applicant did not participate in the expense hearing.

The Arbitrator found that the Insurer was completely successful and therefore entitled to its reasonable expenses.

After adjusting the hourly rate claimed by the Insurer's counsel to the appropriate Legal Aid rate, the Arbitrator fixed the Insurer's expenses at $12,500.00, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes, and ordered the Applicant to pay this amount.

This costs endorsement followed the abandonment of three scheduled motions in an accident benefits and tort action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving a minor plaintiff.

The insurer had moved for summary judgment dismissing aggravated and punitive damages claims, while the plaintiff had cross-moved for a declaration that the Minor Injury Guidelines did not apply and had also proposed an amendment to plead bad faith damages.

After the insurer delivered an OCF 9 confirming the claim fell outside the Minor Injury Guidelines and the plaintiff narrowed or abandoned his other positions, the motions became unnecessary.

The court held both sides had engaged in tactical gamesmanship that caused needless motion practice, and ordered costs in the cause rather than awarding costs to either side on the abandoned motions.

The respondent insurer sought its legal expenses after successfully defending an appeal before the Director's Delegate.

The respondent claimed an hourly rate of $150 for its senior counsel.

The Delegate found the respondent was entitled to its reasonable appeal expenses as the wholly successful party.

However, applying Rule 78 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, the Delegate reduced the hourly rate, noting the $150 rate is restricted to insured persons, while insurers' counsel are subject to a lower cap.

The respondent was awarded $3,931.21 in legal expenses, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The Appellant insurer sought a stay of an Arbitrator's order requiring it to pay income replacement benefits, attendant care, housekeeping, and medical benefits to the Respondent insured, pending an appeal.

The Director's Delegate denied the stay request, finding that under subsection 283(6) of the Insurance Act, a stay is the exception rather than the rule.

The Delegate held that the Appellant failed to establish that the pre-arbitration status quo ought to be preserved, noting that the appeal was restricted to questions of law and that staying the payment orders would constitute a hardship to the Respondent that outweighed any hardship to the Appellant.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing her claims for medical, caregiver, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the arbitrator erred in law by excluding a witness and a document disclosed shortly before the hearing, applying an incorrect causation test, and improperly weighing the medical evidence.

The Director's Delegate rejected the appeal, finding the arbitrator properly exercised his discretion to exclude late evidence to prevent trial by ambush, made reasonable credibility findings, and provided adequate reasons for preferring the respondent's medical evidence.

The appeal was restricted to questions of law, and no such errors were found.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, which the insurer terminated.

The applicant applied for arbitration but failed to attend the prehearing, and his representative withdrew from the record.

The arbitrator issued a notice of intention to dismiss the arbitration.

The applicant did not respond.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration and ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $1,500.00.

The appellant insurer appealed an order requiring it to pay interest at the rate provided for by s. 46(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule on a sum payable to the respondent insured but unpaid for 19 months.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the clear policy intent of s. 46 is compensatory, and it was entirely consistent with that policy to calculate the loss incurred due to the late payment pursuant to s. 46(2).

The insurer brought a motion for the production of medical and employment records from several non-parties.

The applicant did not object to the production and had previously attempted to obtain the records.

The arbitrator ordered the non-party doctors to produce their complete charts, finding that reasonable efforts had been made and the doctors had a reasonable opportunity to respond.

However, the arbitrator declined to order the non-party employer to produce employment records, as there was insufficient evidence that the employer had been properly served with the motion record and given an opportunity to respond.

In a pre-hearing discussion regarding a claim for statutory accident benefits, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to execute authorizations for the disclosure of various employment, educational, and medical records.

The arbitrator also found that the insurer's request for a further medical examination by an orthopaedic surgeon was reasonably necessary, given new information about the physical demands of the applicant's employment.

Consequently, the scheduled arbitration hearing was adjourned to allow time for the productions and examination.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents in 1995 and sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) and rehabilitation benefits from the insurer.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had a legitimate contract of employment as a truck driver trainee prior to the second accident and was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of that employment due to injuries sustained in the accident, specifically heterotopic bone formation affecting his ability to sit for prolonged periods.

The applicant was awarded IRBs based on the truck driving contract, as well as funding for a vocational assessment at Goodwill Industries and case management services.

The applicant's claim for a higher IRB rate based on his pre-accident work as a taxi driver was dismissed due to a lack of reliable income evidence.