Katherine Badenoch

The applicant father brought a motion for summary judgment to set aside a separation agreement signed in 2019, arguing fraudulent misrepresentation, lack of consensus, and that the agreement was a sham.

Under the agreement, the applicant transferred his interest in the matrimonial home to the respondent.

The court found no evidence to support the applicant's claims and held that the agreement was valid and enforceable.

The motion to set aside the separation agreement was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG due to psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to establish either a psychological impairment or a chronic pain condition meeting the AMA Guides criteria.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, dismissed the claim for the treatment plan, and denied the request for an award and interest.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan for a Cefaly device to treat post-traumatic headaches was reasonable and necessary, noting it provided pain relief without the side effects of medication.

However, the Tribunal denied multiple treatment plans for psychological services, finding the applicant failed to justify the need for 1.25-hour sessions over standard 1-hour sessions, and upheld the insurer's reduced hourly rate for the psychotherapist.

Claims for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 were dismissed as the insurer's reliance on its s. 44 assessor was not unreasonable.

The plaintiff, injured while a passenger on a bus, brought a motion to strike the jury notice due to COVID-19 delays and to permit witnesses to testify virtually.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to amend their Statement of Defence to allege contributory negligence and failure to mitigate.

The court granted the defendants' motion to amend, finding the proposed amendments legally tenable.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to strike the jury notice at this time, noting the availability of jury trial facilities in Toronto and the substantive right to a jury, but adjourned the trial.

The court granted the request to allow witnesses to testify by video conference, subject to notice requirements.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them in 1998 based on a Med/Rehab DAC report.

The applicant applied for mediation in 2000 and subsequently for arbitration.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue arguing the application for arbitration was premature because the applicant had not submitted specific claims for expenses prior to mediation.

The arbitrator held that the insurer's 1998 notice refusing to pay further benefits constituted a "dispute" under section 71 of the SABS, triggering the right to proceed to dispute resolution.

The application was not premature.

The arbitration was adjourned pending a new Med/Rehab DAC assessment, and the applicant was ordered to particularize her claimed expenses.