H. Jack Parsekhian

The appellant suffered psychological injuries after her son was significantly injured in a bicycle accident.

She applied for a catastrophic impairment designation under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The insurer and the License Appeals Tribunal denied her application, finding she was not entitled to apply because she was not directly involved in the accident.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the Tribunal erred in law by ignoring the plain language of the SABS, which allows any 'insured person' to apply for the designation.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was found eligible to make a claim for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding she did not meet the criteria for catastrophic impairment.

She argued the adjudicator erred in finding her emotional impairments were not caused by the accident involving her son, and in interpreting the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact in the original decision's causation analysis or statutory interpretation.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing their action for delay.

The action, commenced in 2013, alleged improper solicitation of clients by former associates.

The court applied the Reid factors and found that the plaintiffs failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, failed to show the deadline was missed through inadvertence, and did not move promptly to set aside the dismissal.

Furthermore, the court found actual prejudice to the defendants due to the loss of key evidence, specifically a mobile phone containing allegedly incriminating messages.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was dismissed.

The appellants, who were injured in separate motor vehicle accidents, failed to attend insurer medical examinations (IMEs) because the insurers did not provide Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) certified interpreters.

The arbitrators in both cases held that the appellants were precluded from proceeding to mediation or arbitration due to their non-attendance.

The appellants appealed the preliminary orders and sought a stay.

The Director's Delegate accepted and combined the appeals because they raised the common issue of whether an insured person is entitled to a MAG-accredited interpreter at an IME.

However, the Delegate declined to stay the arbitrators' orders pending the appeals, finding that a stay is the exception and the grounds for appeal were not sufficiently compelling to warrant one.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits.

The insurer scheduled multiple section 44 examinations, which the applicant refused to attend because the insurer did not provide a Cantonese interpreter accredited by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The insurer offered other qualified interpreters, but the applicant maintained her refusal.

The arbitrator found that the absence of a MAG-certified interpreter was not a reasonable explanation for failing to attend the examinations, as there is no legislative requirement for such specific accreditation.

Consequently, the applicant was precluded from proceeding to mediation on the issues in dispute.

The appellant appealed a trial judge's ruling that he was entitled to only 90 days' notice upon the non-renewal of a contract.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that because the contract allowed for termination during its term on 90 days' notice, the notice of non-renewal could not exceed 90 days.

The court also upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant's records were too unreliable to establish anything more than nominal damages for the shortfall in notice.