David M. Miller

The appellant was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle collision when she attempted to turn left into a private driveway and was struck by the respondents' vehicle attempting to pass her.

The trial judge apportioned liability equally at 50 percent.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that while the appellant was negligent in failing to check her mirrors and signal in time under s. 142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, the trial judge erred by failing to conduct a causation analysis.

The Court reapportioned liability, finding the respondent driver 90 percent responsible for driving too fast for the conditions and attempting an unsafe pass, and the appellant 10 percent responsible for her contributory negligence.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order regarding the commencement of limitation periods for insurance benefits.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge failed to clearly assess whether and when the applicable limitation periods commenced in relation to the notices delivered.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside paragraph 1 of the motion judge's order, and remitted the issue to the lower court for determination on a more fulsome evidentiary record.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them totally liable for a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The trial judge had purported to determine liability by taking the appellants' evidence at its highest, without resolving conflicting testimony regarding the respondent's use of turn signals and vehicle positioning.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to make necessary factual findings and misapplied the law regarding the onus on a following driver and contributory negligence.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

Following a successful arbitration regarding statutory accident benefits, the applicant sought arbitration expenses of $1,225.81.

The insurer argued that each party should bear its own expenses because the legal issue was uncertain.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's argument, finding that the law was not uncertain and the insurer's position lacked novelty or complexity.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant his full claimed expenses of $1,225.81.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for income replacement benefits.

The insurer calculated his gross annual income from employment without including the benefit premiums paid by his employer.

The arbitrator held that employer-paid benefit premiums are included in 'gross annual income from employment' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, as they are a form of compensation and 'income' should be interpreted broadly.

The insurer was ordered to pay the benefits owing with interest.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought weekly income benefits.

At arbitration, he was awarded the minimum weekly amount because he failed to prove a higher pre-accident income, having relied on unreported cash taken from his business.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence of his living expenses to prove he must have earned a higher income, and requested a rehearing.

The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, finding that the fresh evidence was available at the time of the hearing and would not prove the source of the income.

The request for a rehearing was also denied, as the arbitrator's findings of fact were supported by the evidence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them, claiming she was no longer substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a server and cashier.

The arbitrator found that the applicant remained substantially unable to perform the heavy aspects of her work as a server and was therefore entitled to ongoing weekly income benefits.

The arbitrator also determined the proper calculation of her pre-accident income, including an estimate of her tip income, and awarded a special award of $1,500 against the insurer for unreasonably handling the tips issue.