Garett Harper

The appellants appealed an order that foreclosed their ability to defend the action, arguing the motion judge failed to provide reasons.

The Court of Appeal agreed that reasons were warranted for such a serious decision, but found the reasons were discernible from the record.

The appeal was dismissed for the reasons previously given by the court in refusing a stay pending appeal.

The appellants sought a stay pending appeal from an order striking their statement of defence for non-compliance with documentary disclosure obligations and a prior peremptory order.

The motion judge held the proposed appeal was weak, found no irreparable harm, and concluded the balance of convenience and justice of the case favoured refusal of a stay.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a trial where the plaintiff's $2.5 million claim was largely dismissed, with only $15,000 awarded under warranty.

The defendant was deemed the successful party for costs.

The court addressed the parties' conduct regarding document organization and hyperlinking during the virtual trial, which significantly lengthened proceedings.

Despite the defendant's success, their costs award was substantially reduced due to joint failures in trial preparation and adherence to practice directions.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions, including a skin condition and fibromyalgia, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found no compelling medical evidence that the pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery under the MIG.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and an award were dismissed.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the appellant’s action arising from a motor vehicle accident, following a jury’s verdict.

The appellant claimed the trial judge erred by not permitting the jury to deliberate on future income loss and housekeeping expenses, and by refusing expert testimony on these costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury's undisputed finding of no causation rendered the rulings on damages irrelevant.

Following a 14-day trial where the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim was dismissed, the successful defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff argued that his impecuniosity, relying on social assistance, should insulate him from an adverse costs award.

The court rejected this argument, noting the plaintiff had access to after-the-event insurance and that impecuniosity rarely prevents a costs award.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs, reducing the claimed fees and disbursements to an amount reasonable for an unsuccessful litigant to pay, fixing total costs at $158,000.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of Justice Tranquilli dated March 29, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without costs, as no cost summaries were filed.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded partial indemnity costs to the responding plaintiff.

The applicant sought medical benefits for dental work following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plan, relying on a section 44 assessment which concluded that only some of the proposed work was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that composite restorations for teeth 1.4 and 2.2 were reasonable and necessary, rejecting the applicant's request for porcelain crowns.

The Tribunal also approved an implant replacement for tooth 4.7, finding it more appropriate than the insurer's proposed extraction.

The claims for teeth 4.4 and 4.5 were dismissed as they were related to pre-existing wear and erosion.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the Registrar's administrative dismissal of the action for delay.

The defendant opposed, arguing prejudice due to document purging and a missing surveyor.

Applying the *Reid v. Dow Corning Corp.* test, the court found the plaintiff's explanation for delay less than compelling but accepted inadvertence for missing the deadline.

Crucially, the court determined there was no actual prejudice to the defendant's ability to defend the action, as necessary documents still existed and the surveyor's testimony was not essential.

The motion was allowed, and the plaintiff was given a new deadline to set the action down for trial.

The applicant sought an order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal to allow him to record an insurer's medical examination under s. 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal held that it does not have the jurisdiction to order the use of a recording device during an insurer's examination, as its powers are strictly statutory and neither the Insurance Act nor the Schedule confers such authority.

The preliminary issue was resolved in favour of the insurer.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that awarded the applicant income replacement benefits up to a specific future date.

The Executive Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the adjudicator made an error of law by fixing an end-date for the benefits, which potentially fettered the insurer's ability to adjust the file if the applicant's eligibility changed.

The order was varied to state that the benefits are reinstated from the date they were stopped and are ongoing until no longer owing in accordance with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRB).

The insurer terminated the benefits, arguing the applicant did not meet the test for entitlement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was employed as a school bus driver at the time of the accident and that the accident caused her right shoulder and back pain.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's physiatrist over the insurer's, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's physical limitations rendered her substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her employment, specifically driving a school bus for extended periods.

The applicant was awarded a weekly IRB of $292.46.