3 total
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal of a combined personal injury action due to inordinate and inexcusable delay.
The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for delay.
The action arose from two separate events in 2009—an alleged slip and fall accident and a motor vehicle accident—and had been ongoing since 2011.
A timetable was imposed in 2015 requiring completion of discoveries, mediation, and trial set-down by specific dates.
The appellant failed to comply with the timetable.
The motion judge dismissed the action for inordinate and inexcusable delay, finding the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice and that a fair trial was no longer possible.
The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding no error in the motion judge's analysis.
Parties ordered to bear their own expenses after failing to consolidate issues in earlier arbitration.
Following an arbitration where the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits was dismissed, the arbitrator determined the issue of expenses.
Applying the criteria under section 12 of Ontario Regulation 664, the arbitrator noted that the insurer was completely successful.
However, the arbitrator found that the issues regarding the specific treatment plans could have been raised at an earlier arbitration hearing between the same parties.
Concluding that both parties used the process to frustrate the other, the arbitrator ordered that each party bear their own expenses.
Insurer awarded reduced legal expenses of $1,548.19 following dismissal of unrepresented claimant's accident benefits appeal.
The respondent insurer sought its legal expenses following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal regarding statutory accident benefits.
The Director's Delegate found that while the appeal was brought in good faith, it was completely unsuccessful and essentially challenged findings of fact, which was not a good choice for an appeal.
The respondent was awarded its reasonable legal expenses, but the quantum was reduced from the claimed $3,299.52 to $1,548.19, as the preparation time claimed was excessive given the concise nature of the unrepresented appellant's submissions.
