Jennifer Singh

The applicant, who was wheelchair-bound prior to the accident, was struck by a truck and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's injuries were soft tissue in nature and that she failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's medical assessors, concluding that the applicant's ongoing functional limitations were largely attributable to a significant post-accident weight gain and pre-existing conditions rather than the accident.

Claims for physiotherapy, psychological services, occupational therapy, and an award for unreasonably withheld benefits were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically an income replacement benefit and interest.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing and presented no evidence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to discharge his onus of proving entitlement to the benefits in dispute.

Wal-Mart Canada Corporation moved for summary judgment on its crossclaim against United Services Group, alleging breach of a facilities maintenance agreement.

Wal-Mart claimed United failed to name it as an additional insured on a liability policy, seeking defence costs and indemnification after the plaintiff slipped and fell at the premises.

The court granted partial summary judgment, finding that United breached the agreement by failing to name Wal-Mart as an additional insured, which would have triggered a duty to defend.

However, the court determined that the issue of United's duty to indemnify Wal-Mart and the quantification of damages required a trial, as it was premature to conclude whether the plaintiff's fall directly arose from United's specific contractual cleaning obligations.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits (ACBs), and various medical and rehabilitation treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the Applicant was not entitled to IRBs because he failed to provide the insurer with requested information, and was not entitled to ACBs because they were neither reasonable and necessary nor incurred.

However, the Tribunal approved the treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services, preferring the evidence of the Applicant's treating practitioners over the insurer's paper-review assessors.

Claims for occupational therapy and a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 were dismissed.

Acasi Machinery Inc. brought a motion to stay an action commenced by Jeremy Kessler Canadian Mustard Inc. o/a Kozlik’s Mustard in Ontario, arguing that a forum selection clause in their contract mandated disputes be resolved in Florida.

The court dismissed the motion, finding strong reasons to avoid the clause.

The clause was neither negotiated nor brought to Kozlik's attention, indicating an unequal bargaining power.

The court also applied the Moran principle, stating that manufacturers should expect to defend negligence claims where their products are used, and noted that the availability of Zoom reduces the significance of witness location in determining the convenient forum.

Ontario was found to have a real and substantial connection and to be the convenient forum.