Don Harvey

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment (CAT) based on mental and behavioural disorders, and entitlement to a post-104-week income replacement benefit (IRB).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant sustained psychological impairments from the accident, she did not meet the Criterion 8 threshold for CAT, as she demonstrated only moderate impairments across the four spheres of functioning.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, preferring the respondent's multi-disciplinary assessment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated November 2, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the respondent in the amount of $3,261.18.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that his pre-existing cerebral palsy combined with accident-related impairments resulted in a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Licence Application Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant continued to engage in substantially all of his pre-accident activities, including driving, housekeeping, volunteering, and recreational pursuits.

The Tribunal relied on the applicant's family physician's disability certificate and clinical records, which indicated ongoing improvement and mild symptoms.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action against the municipality and its snow removal contractor after slipping and falling on a snowy sidewalk.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment.

The court granted the motion, finding that the municipality was not grossly negligent as it had a reasonable general policy for snow removal and responded reasonably to the specific snow event.

The court also found the municipality could rely on statutory defences under the City of Toronto Act, and that the contractor had complied with its contractual obligations.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded $24,442.42 in damages for personal injury, the court determined the issue of costs.

The defendants argued the plaintiff should be denied costs under Rule 76.13 for failing to use the simplified procedure.

The court found it was reasonable for the plaintiff to have commenced and continued the action under the ordinary procedure, as the damages claimed were originally well above the $50,000 threshold.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $36,771.98, reducing the requested amount to account for duplication of efforts caused by the plaintiff's team approach to litigation.

The plaintiff sued the defendant fitness club for a finger amputation injury sustained while using a vertical leg press machine.

The plaintiff alleged his foot slipped off the machine's platform because he had stepped in a puddle of water near a water fountain.

The court found the defendants breached their duty under the Occupier's Liability Act because there was no evidence their maintenance system was actually implemented on the day of the accident.

The court also found the plaintiff was 50% contributorily negligent for failing to ensure his shoes were dry before using the heavy weight machine.

Damages were assessed at $48,884.84 and apportioned equally, resulting in a judgment of $24,442.42 for the plaintiff.