Kevin Lin

The appellant appealed summary judgment dismissing the claim against a homeowner arising from a serious dog bite injury at the property.

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent, who owned the house but lived abroad and did not know her brother was residing there with the dogs, was neither an owner for purposes of the Dog Owners' Liability Act nor vicariously liable through agency principles.

The court found no evidence that the respondent consented to her brother acting on her behalf or represented that he had authority to do so.

The appeal was dismissed and costs of $10,000 all inclusive were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant sought a section 10 award and costs, arguing the insurer unreasonably delayed removing him from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and approving treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer had initially denied the plans based on section 44 examinations but later approved them upon receiving updated medical information.

The Tribunal found the insurer's initial reliance on its medical examinations was permissible and its subsequent approval of benefits demonstrated a continual assessment of the file, not unreasonable conduct.

The claims for an award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit of $698.83 for the denied portions of a psychological treatment plan, specifically for documentation support and three additional progress evaluations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to explain the documentation fee and that the request for four progress evaluations over twelve sessions exceeded the Ontario Psychological Association Guidelines.

The application was dismissed as the applicant did not prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

The applicant disputed the termination but filed the application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal outside the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator rejected the applicant's arguments that the insurer's notice was invalid, that the jurisdictional transfer from FSCO to the Tribunal justified relaxing the limitation period, and that the insurer should be estopped from relying on the limitation period.

The claim was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing because she had left the country to attend to her ill mother, but neither she nor her counsel informed the respondent or the Tribunal until the start of the hearing.

The respondent sought costs under Rule 19.

The Tribunal found the applicant's actions and her counsel's failure to disclose her absence to be unreasonable and in bad faith.

The Tribunal awarded $700 in costs to the respondent to sanction the unacceptable behaviour and compensate for the inconvenience and wasted resources.

The applicant failed to attend a scheduled hearing because she had travelled to Germany due to her mother's medical emergency.

Her counsel requested an adjournment, which the respondent opposed, arguing the application should be dismissed as an abuse of process or abandoned.

The Tribunal found the application was not frivolous, vexatious, or abandoned, as the applicant's absence was due to a sudden medical emergency and she maintained ties to Canada.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment and set peremptory dates for the hearing, noting that the respondent's concerns about lack of notice could be addressed in a costs motion.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for arbitration for statutory accident benefits as frivolous under Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The insurer had already paid attendant care benefits up to the non-catastrophic policy limit of $36,000.

The applicant sought to add the issue of catastrophic impairment, but the arbitrator found the applications for catastrophic determination were not submitted before the FSCO cut-off date to add issues.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration, finding no further attendant care benefits were payable and no basis for a special award.

No costs were awarded.