Frank Loreto

The plaintiffs purchased a residential property from the defendants.

After moving in, the plaintiffs discovered the property had previously been used as a marijuana grow-op.

The plaintiffs sued the vendors, their real estate agent, and the brokerage for misrepresentation and negligence.

The vendor defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against them, claiming they had no knowledge of the grow-op.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was a genuine issue for trial regarding the vendors' credibility and knowledge, and that granting partial summary judgment would risk inconsistent findings given the intertwined claims against the real estate agent and brokerage.

The appellant appealed a default judgment obtained by the respondents in a real estate dispute.

The respondents, as purchasers, alleged that the appellant, as vendor, made negligent misrepresentations regarding property taxes in MLS listings for two properties.

The motion judge declined to set aside the default judgment.

On appeal, the appellant argued the judgment was irregularly obtained.

The Court of Appeal upheld the default judgment, finding that the statement of claim provided a sufficient basis for the judgment as it included allegations of negligent misrepresentation and a plea that the respondents would not have entered into the transactions but for the misrepresentations.

The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury trial where the jury awarded zero damages, the defendant brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function caused by the 2013 accident.

The plaintiff's medical evidence was flawed because his experts were either unaware of or could not parse out the effects of three subsequent motor vehicle accidents.

The defendant's motion was granted and the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was dismissed.

The applicant claimed he was injured when a public transit bus braked suddenly, causing him to support his weight on his leg.

He sought ongoing statutory accident benefits, claiming physical and psychological impairments prevented him from continuing his English as a Second Language classes and carrying on a normal life.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim, finding the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and that he had concealed his refugee status from medical assessors.

The medical evidence established that the applicant's knee complaints were likely idiopathic and that he suffered no physical or psychological impairment disabling him from his studies or normal activities.

The arbitrator also denied the applicant's request for hearing expenses due to his lack of candour and failure to present a bona fide claim.

The insurer appealed an arbitration order awarding the claimant $3,720 for babysitting and housekeeping services under paragraph 6(1)(f) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer argued that because the claimant was already receiving weekly benefits as an unemployed primary caregiver under section 13, he was precluded from recovering replacement services under section 6.

The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, holding that receipt of section 13 benefits does not foreclose recovery of supplementary care benefits under section 6, provided the expenses relate to the insured person's own needs.

The Director also declined to interfere with the arbitrator's factual findings regarding the apportionment of the housekeeper's duties.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's preliminary decision that the insured had not finally settled her weekly benefits claim at mediation and could proceed to arbitration.

The insurer argued that mediation is strictly confidential and the Report of Mediator confirming settlement should be conclusive.

The Director of Arbitrations held that while statements made to or by the mediator are privileged to protect the mediator's neutrality, evidence of the parties' own understanding and subsequent conduct is admissible to determine if a settlement was actually reached when the Report is ambiguous.

The appeal was dismissed, allowing the arbitration for weekly benefits to proceed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits.

The insurer deducted Canada Pension Plan disability benefits from the weekly income benefits, arguing they were payments for loss of income.

The applicant disputed this and applied for arbitration.

On the date of the hearing, the applicant conceded the claim would fail but sought arbitration expenses.

The arbitrator found it was reasonable for the applicant to have applied for arbitration to test the legal issue, but noted the claim was unreasonably prolonged before being conceded.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant $750 in expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant sought ongoing benefits, while the insurer claimed he had returned to work as a self-employed leathercutter.

Relying on surveillance evidence and medical observations of calluses on the applicant's hands, the arbitrator found the applicant was working and able to perform his essential tasks by January 22, 1992.

The arbitrator also found the applicant had post-accident earnings that were deductible from his benefits.

The applicant was ordered to repay $26,125.36 in overpaid benefits, and his claims for expenses and a special award were dismissed due to his lack of credibility and pursuit of a claim despite clear evidence he was working.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly disability benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

The parties attended mediation and the insurer paid a $6,000 lump sum, which it argued was a full and final settlement of the weekly benefits claim.

The applicant argued the sum was only a reinstatement of benefits for a limited period and that she did not agree to a final release.

The arbitrator found that the mediator's report did not clearly indicate a full and final release and that the applicant did not understand the settlement to be final.

The arbitrator held that the weekly benefits claim was not settled and allowed the matter to proceed to arbitration.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly disability and caregiver benefits.

He sought reimbursement for housekeeping and babysitting expenses, as well as pre-arbitration legal fees, under section 6(1)(f) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator held that receipt of section 13 weekly benefits does not preclude a claim for specific expenses under section 6.

The arbitrator awarded $3,720 for housekeeping and babysitting services, finding them necessary for the applicant's rehabilitation, but denied the claim for legal fees.