Frank Grande

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's lower extremity neurological symptoms were related to a pre-existing condition and not caused by the accident.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's accident-related psychological impairments and pain in his head, neck, and shoulders resulted in a complete inability to carry on a normal life, entitling him to non-earner benefits.

Claims for attendant care benefits and various treatment plans were dismissed due to insufficient evidence that the expenses were incurred or reasonable and necessary.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision dismissing his application for accident benefits after he failed to file submissions.

The applicant argued that the missed deadline was due to the inadvertence of his former representative, who experienced two family deaths.

The Tribunal found that dismissing the application without submissions, after denying a motion for an extension of time, resulted in a material breach of procedural fairness.

The reconsideration was granted in part, and a new written hearing was ordered for the non-earner benefits and other issues, while the request regarding catastrophic impairment was dismissed as it had been previously withdrawn.

The appellant was denied income replacement benefits after her insurer discovered she misrepresented her address to obtain a lower premium.

The insurer subsequently charged her a retroactive premium increase.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial and refused to apply section 131 of the Insurance Act, which excuses non-compliance based on an insurer's conduct, finding it lacked equitable jurisdiction.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held the LAT erred in law by conflating equitable remedies with statutory relief under section 131, which the LAT has jurisdiction to apply.

The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for a new hearing.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a minor injury and did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, because the insurer failed to comply with the notice provisions under sections 36 and 38 of the Schedule, the applicant was awarded non-earner benefits for the period of non-compliance (January 18 to April 30, 2019) and an attendant care assessment plan incurred during the period of non-compliance.

The remaining assessment plans were denied as not reasonable and necessary, and the claim for an award was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his self-employment as a shipping company president.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's medical evidence unpersuasive as it relied heavily on self-reporting, which was undermined by credibility issues and psychological testing suggesting he was feigning symptoms.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded the applicant suffered only soft-tissue injuries and no substantial inability to work.

Claims for post-104 IRBs, interest, and the respondent's request for costs were also dismissed.

The respondent insurer brought a preliminary issue motion to dismiss the insured's application for income replacement benefits, arguing it was statute-barred because she failed to submit a disability certificate (OCF-3) supporting her claim within 104 weeks of the accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the insured had submitted a completed OCF-3 within the 104-week period.

The Tribunal held that sections 36(2) and (3) of the Schedule only require the submission of a completed certificate, and the issue of whether the certificate supported the substantial inability test was a matter for the substantive hearing.

The plaintiff's slip and fall action was dismissed against the remaining defendants (Marriott entities) after the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) determined it had exclusive jurisdiction, barring the civil claim.

This decision concerns the costs of the action and the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The court found both counsel responsible for the unnecessary motion due to poor communication and unreasonable cost claims, particularly the defendants' inclusion of WSIAT costs which are not recoverable.

The court fixed the costs of the action for the remaining defendants at $2,500 all-inclusive and awarded no costs for the motion itself, emphasizing the waste of court resources and unrecoverable legal fees caused by counsel's failure to communicate meaningfully.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) from the Insurer.

The Insurer disputed the quantum of the Applicant's pre-accident self-employment income and argued that Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits should be deducted from any IRBs payable.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant's 2014 income tax return and customer list provided sufficient reliable evidence of her pre-accident income.

The Arbitrator also held that the Insurer was entitled to offset potential CPP disability benefits from the IRBs starting 18 months post-accident, as the Applicant had an obligation to apply for them.

The Applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed as the Insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The plaintiff, a former nursing student, sued the defendants (individual employees and two educational institutions) for various torts after being wrongfully accused of academic fraud.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the amended statement of claim.

The court struck the claims for personal liability against individual defendants, breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation, but granted leave to the plaintiff to amend the claim within 45 days.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient particulars for personal liability of employees, failed to establish the elements for a fiduciary duty, and did not plead that the defamatory words were spoken or written by the university defendants.

Costs were agreed upon by the parties.

The plaintiff, a former nursing student, sued the defendants for damages after they falsely accused her of academic fraud.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, related to an academic matter, and was an abuse of process.

The court found that while the university has broad discretion in academic matters, this does not extend to the negligent performance of an internal investigation or intentional torts.

The court struck the claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, bad faith, and breach of privacy due to pleading deficiencies, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim.