Karl Girdhari

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove functional impairment due to chronic pain, noting inconsistencies in his self-reported activities of daily living and placing little weight on his physician's chronic pain diagnosis.

Relying on the respondent's psychological assessment, the adjudicator also found no psychological condition warranting removal.

As the injuries were deemed predominantly minor, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

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 Tribunal found the applicant suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment, meeting the criteria under the AMA Guides, and removed him from the MIG.

However, the applicant failed to provide the treatment plans or sufficient submissions to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The claims for the treatment plans, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered whether the applicant was entitled to treatment plans for psychological services, an MRI, and a chronic pain program, as well as an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The Tribunal found the psychological services reasonable and necessary, relying on expert evidence that the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing psychological issues.

However, the Tribunal denied the MRI request because the applicant failed to demonstrate why it could not be obtained through OHIP.

The chronic pain treatment was also denied, as the Tribunal found the supporting medical reports relied heavily on self-reporting and failed to account for the applicant's significant pre-accident impairments.

The claim for an award was dismissed, but interest was granted on the overdue psychological benefits.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for an orthopaedic assessment and physiotherapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting that she did not submit the plans into evidence or provide specific submissions on their goals.

Relying on insurer examination reports which indicated the applicant had uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and was working 13 hours a day without restrictions, the adjudicator dismissed the claims for treatment, interest, and a special award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for physiotherapy.

The respondent denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant did not establish a psychological impairment, his physical injuries fell outside the MIG due to chronic pain and nerve injuries.

The Tribunal concluded that the two physiotherapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, and ordered the respondent to pay the benefits with interest.

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

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the applicant failed to attend.

Her counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a complete breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, as the applicant had not responded to numerous communications.

The arbitrator granted the motion to remove counsel.

The insurer requested that the application be dismissed due to the applicant's non-attendance and failure to provide requested productions.

The arbitrator dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet her onus, and awarded the insurer $567.30 in expenses.

The plaintiff, the Estate of Henry Goldentuler, sought damages against the defendants for intentional wrongful interference with commercial relations and breaches of trust/fiduciary duty, arising from the defendants' surreptitious removal of client files from Goldentuler's law office.

The defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim had been struck due to their failure to pay costs and repeated administrative dismissals of their appeals.

The court conducted an assessment of damages, considering expert evidence on lost fees and disbursements.

The court found the defendants breached their duties of loyalty and good faith.

Damages were calculated by applying a contingency factor for files that might not have settled (1/3 reduction) and a 44% reduction for overhead expenses, then a 50% reduction based on the original fee-splitting arrangement.

The court declined to award punitive damages for litigation delay, deeming it compensable by costs.

The plaintiff successfully appealed an order of the motion judge that had set aside a previous order striking the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim for failure to pay costs.

Following the successful appeal, the parties agreed on costs for the leave to appeal and the appeal itself, but disputed the quantum of costs for the proceedings before the motion judge.

The Divisional Court declined to simply adopt the quantum previously awarded to the defendants by the motion judge, instead increasing the amount to reflect the time spent, responsibility undertaken, and the result that should have been achieved.

The court awarded the plaintiff total costs fixed at $50,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff appealed an order setting aside a previous order that struck out the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim for failure to pay costs.

The motion judge had invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the Superior Court to set aside the order, citing the negligent representation of the defendants' former lawyer.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred in invoking inherent jurisdiction when the matter should have been governed by Rule 59.06(2)(a).

Furthermore, the defendants were not entitled to relief because they failed to take reasonable steps to protect themselves despite being aware of red flags regarding their lawyer's negligence.

The appellant sued a car dealership and its employees for breach of contract, negligence, and conspiracy regarding a brake replacement.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the conspiracy claim, finding no evidence to support it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, agreeing that the appellant failed to prove a conspiracy and that the defendants' conduct was consistent with breach of contract or negligence.

The appeal and the appeal as to costs were dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a civil claim alleging conspiracy relating to vehicle brake repairs and allegedly inflated pricing for brake disc/rotors.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendants conspired to overcharge for parts and to conceal a warped rotor by loosening a wheel bearing, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

The court held that the tort of civil conspiracy requires proof of an agreement and resulting damages, as articulated in Canada Cement LaFarge Ltd. v. British Columbia Lightweight Aggregate Ltd. The evidentiary record contained no evidence of any agreement among the defendants or of damages arising from the alleged conspiracy.

Summary judgment was therefore granted dismissing the conspiracy claims, while the remaining repair-related claims were allowed to proceed to trial.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside an earlier order striking their statement of defence and counterclaim after their former solicitor failed to respond to motions, failed to pay costs awards, and failed to properly perfect an appeal.

The court considered whether litigants may rely on solicitor neglect to obtain relief, and whether the court’s inherent jurisdiction and Rule 59.06 could justify setting aside the order.

Applying factors similar to those used for setting aside default judgments—adequate explanation, prejudice, and defence on the merits—the court found that although the defendants had ignored several warning signs about their lawyer’s conduct, there was no prejudice to the plaintiff and the defendants had an arguable defence.

The interests of justice favoured deciding the matter on its merits rather than through procedural default.

The appellant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents and sought income replacement benefits.

The insurer denied benefits for a period, arguing the appellant failed to comply with requests for information regarding collateral benefits under section 33 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found the appellant was precluded from receiving benefits for the period of non-compliance.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate held that the insurer failed to provide clear, straightforward, and consistent notice of the consequences of non-compliance and the saving provision for a reasonable explanation.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was not precluded from receiving benefits for the disputed period.

The Applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents and applied for income replacement benefits.

The Insurer requested information regarding the Applicant's entitlement to short-term collateral disability benefits.

The Applicant failed to provide this information for over a year.

The Arbitrator held that the Applicant's failure to comply with requests made under section 33 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule precluded him from receiving income replacement benefits for the period of non-compliance.