Jim Tomlinson

The applicants sought orders under section 61 of the CCAA to recognize and give effect in Canada to two orders made in their US Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings.

The US orders established a claims bar date and discharged claims not filed by that date.

The applicants sought to use these orders to bar the respondents' claims in an ongoing Ontario tort action.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants should seek enforcement of the US orders within the specific Ontario action rather than seeking a general recognition order under section 61 of the CCAA.

This approach allows the court in the action to assess the equities on a party-by-party basis.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident when the pickup truck he was a passenger in went through a red light and was struck by a transport truck going through a green light.

The jury found the driver of the pickup 95% liable and the driver of the transport truck 5% liable.

The appellants (the transport truck driver and owners) appealed, arguing the jury verdict was unreasonable, the trial judge misdirected the jury on causation, and there was improper cross-examination.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding evidence supported the jury's conclusion that a reasonably prudent driver should have been aware of the hazard, the jury charge was not in error when read as a whole, and the improper cross-examination was not serious enough to undermine trial fairness.

The insurer requested a correction to a previous arbitration order regarding the calculation of Loss of Earning Capacity (LEC) benefits.

The arbitrator found jurisdiction under the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code to correct the technical calculation error, which had failed to deduct UI, CPP, and income tax from the pre-accident income.

The LEC benefits were recalculated and reduced accordingly.

The arbitrator also determined that the insured was entitled to her expenses of the arbitration process, as she was largely successful in establishing her entitlement to the LEC benefit and the insurer had not made an offer to settle.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits, including a loss of earning capacity (LEC) benefit, housekeeping expenses, and shop assistant expenses.

The arbitrator determined the applicant's pre-accident earning capacity based on her reported income and unreported tips, and found she had no residual earning capacity due to a mild to moderate brain injury.

The claim for a shop assistant was dismissed as an unreasonable rehabilitation expense, while the claim for housekeeping expenses was allowed.

The applicant's request for a special award was dismissed.

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

The parties entered into a settlement agreement, but a dispute arose over the interpretation of a term regarding ongoing payment for a shop assistant and housekeeping expenses.

The arbitrator held that the settlement agreement implicitly required the applicant to demonstrate continuing entitlement to the benefits and to provide reasonable verification of her expenses, rather than providing a 'blank cheque' for life.