Eric Levin

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their negligence action against one defendant (Franchetto) following a motor vehicle accident.

The motion judge found Franchetto not negligent, applying the "sudden emergency" doctrine.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's conclusion that Franchetto's actions were reasonable given the sudden emergency created by the other driver.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant Phillip Franchetto brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss negligence claims against him arising from a head-on motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiffs, passengers in the other vehicle, alleged Franchetto was negligent for his speed and evasive maneuvers.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Franchetto's actions were reasonable and did not breach the standard of care, nor were they a legal cause of the plaintiffs' injuries.

The court emphasized that expert opinions based on hindsight and counterfactuals cannot supplant the legal standard of a reasonable and prudent driver in an emergency.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to psychological and emotional damage.

The Tribunal reviewed extensive medical and occupational therapy evidence, finding that the applicant's pre-accident active lifestyle had been replaced by severe avoidant behaviours, fatigue, and an inability to cope with stress.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychiatric assessor over the respondent's, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a marked impairment in the domain of adaptation.

The claims for interest and a special award were dismissed as there were no specific monetary benefits in dispute.

Following an arbitration and a subsequent application for variation/revocation regarding statutory accident benefits, the arbitrator determined the issue of expenses.

The insurer was almost entirely successful in the arbitration and entirely successful in the variation/revocation application.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer its expenses, fixing the amount at $27,425.82 inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, after assessing the reasonableness of the claimed preparation time and expert witness fees.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied two treatment plans for assessments.

The Divisional Court held that the adjudicator made no error of law and reasonably concluded that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving entitlement to benefits beyond the MIG cap.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for occupational therapy assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the insurer's denial letters failed to comply with the notice requirements under section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the denial letters were compliant.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG.

Consequently, the claim for an in-home assessment was barred by section 25(2) of the Schedule, and the claim for a work site assessment was dismissed for lack of evidence that it was reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming the cost of an attendant care assessment.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving his impairments fell outside the MIG, preferring the insurer's expert evidence that the diagnosed radiculopathy was a sequelae of soft tissue injuries.

As the applicant was subject to the MIG, he was not entitled to attendant care benefits, rendering the assessment cost unreasonable and unnecessary.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and medical/rehabilitation expenses following a 2012 motor vehicle accident.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant did not meet the test for pre-104 week IRBs (substantial inability to perform essential tasks of employment) or post-104 week IRBs (complete inability to engage in suitable employment), noting she had returned to work for a period, completed nursing programs, and cared for four children.

Claims for the cost of a Disability Certificate and a Psycho-Vocational Assessment were also dismissed for failing to meet the statutory requirements for reasonableness and necessity.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

After the applicant's legal counsel was removed from the record, the applicant failed to attend a pre-hearing discussion and the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to Rule 37.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to the claimed benefits and presented no evidence, the application for arbitration was dismissed.

The insurer requested $500 in expenses, and the arbitrator invited written submissions from the applicant on the issue of expenses.

The applicants were injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied various benefits, and the applicants subsequently applied for arbitration.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applications for arbitration were statute-barred because they were commenced more than two years after the insurer's refusal to pay the benefits.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's denials were clear and unequivocal, constituting valid refusals that triggered the limitation periods.

As the applicants failed to commence mediation or arbitration within the two-year limitation periods, their claims for caregiver, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits were dismissed as statute-barred.

One applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration solely on medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After failing to participate in the arbitration process, failing to comply with orders, and failing to attend the peremptory hearing, the application was dismissed.

The insurer was awarded $10,000 in expenses due to the applicant's pattern of non-compliance and failure to submit to insurer examinations.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

After settlement discussions failed, the Applicant sought to withdraw her application for arbitration and close her file.

The Insurer raised concerns about the Applicant's capacity to enter into a settlement without legal advice.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant had the capacity to participate and permitted her to withdraw her application for arbitration without costs, with the consent of the Insurer.