Joanne Witt

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer initially denied on the basis that the incident was an assault and not an 'accident'.

After a preliminary decision found the incident was an accident, the matter proceeded to a hearing on substantive benefits.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for income replacement benefits, transportation expenses, and assistive devices, finding the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof.

However, the Tribunal granted the claim for occupational therapy services because the respondent's denial did not comply with the requirements of s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, but interest was awarded on any overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to attend the videoconference hearing or file any evidence.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application as abandoned and sought costs.

The Tribunal denied the motion to dismiss as abandoned, opting to proceed on the merits.

Because the applicant provided no evidence, the Tribunal found he failed to meet his evidentiary burden and dismissed the claims for benefits.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request for costs, finding that the applicant's failure to attend did not amount to unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious conduct warranting a costs award.

The applicant, a taxi driver, sought statutory accident benefits after an unidentified pedestrian shattered his driver's side window, causing glass to enter his eyes.

The respondent insurer denied benefits, arguing the incident was an assault and not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that the vehicle was being used for its ordinary purpose and that the vehicle itself was the instrument of injury.

The Tribunal concluded the incident met the definition of an accident and ordered the matter to proceed to a substantive hearing.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence of functional impairment arising from chronic pain or psychological injuries, preferring the respondent's insurer's examinations over the applicant's medical reports.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, interest, or an award.

A third party brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a third party claim arising from a multi-vehicle collision on the Gardiner Expressway.

The moving party relied primarily on an affidavit sworn by counsel that included excerpts from police reports and discovery transcripts, including the moving party’s own discovery evidence.

The court held that such evidence was largely inadmissible under the Rules of Civil Procedure and noted the absence of direct affidavit evidence from the moving party with personal knowledge of the events.

Given conflicting evidence about whether the third party caused the defendant to swerve and lose control, the court concluded that there was a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was therefore dismissed and costs were awarded against the moving party.

The applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of age, race, ethnic origin, and colour after his insurer determined he was 100% at fault for an automobile accident under the Fault Determination Rules, despite a police officer stating he did not cause the accident.

The Tribunal held a summary hearing to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant provided no evidence linking the insurer's fault determination to any prohibited ground under the Human Rights Code.

The applicant sought to amend a pre-hearing report to remove the issues of quantum and repayment of income replacement benefits, arguing they were not part of her original application for arbitration.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, holding that under section 282(3) of the Insurance Act, the arbitrator must determine all issues in dispute, whether raised by the insured or the insurer.

The issues of quantum and repayment were found to be genuine disputes that naturally flowed from the applicant's claim for entitlement, and their inclusion would prevent multiple proceedings.