Laura Qaqish

The applicant sought a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to an income replacement benefit and found her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant alleged multiple errors of law and fact, including the misapplication of the standard for causation, omission of relevant evidence, and misinterpretation of section 11 of the Schedule, as well as breaches of procedural fairness.

The adjudicator dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was primarily attempting to relitigate factual findings and the weighing of evidence from the original hearing.

The adjudicator concluded that no legal or factual errors were established that would have likely changed the outcome, and no procedural fairness violations occurred.

The applicant's request for costs was also denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and funding for a rheumatological assessment, following a motor vehicle accident while riding a TTC bus.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries were minor and that an intervening workplace accident was the true cause of her ongoing impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a substantial or complete inability to perform her pre-accident employment, noting she had returned to physical labour before the workplace accident occurred.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not establish removal from the Minor Injury Guideline and dismissed the claim for the assessment due to the failure to produce the treatment plan.

The application was dismissed.

Following a jury verdict finding that a motor vehicle accident did not cause injury to the plaintiff, and dismissal of the action on the statutory threshold for non‑pecuniary damages, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs based on alleged misconduct and a withdrawn Rule 49 offer to settle.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not justified because the plaintiffs’ conduct was not reprehensible and the defendants’ offer had been withdrawn prior to trial, removing automatic Rule 49 consequences.

However, the defendants were the successful parties and were entitled to partial indemnity costs throughout, with the court fixing a lump sum award after considering proportionality, trial complexity, and counsel conduct that lengthened the proceeding.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits following an alleged motor vehicle accident.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue regarding whether an 'accident' occurred.

After multiple adjournments and the removal of the applicant's counsel, the applicant failed to attend the peremptory preliminary issue hearing.

The arbitrator proceeded in her absence pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The application for arbitration was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish she was injured in an accident.

The applicant's representative brought a motion to be removed from the record after losing contact with the applicant, who had left the country and failed to provide updated contact information.

The arbitrator found that the breakdown in communication prevented the representative from obtaining instructions, making it impossible to continue the representation.

The motion was granted, and the applicant was ordered to provide updated contact information and advise of her intentions regarding future representation.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by a FSCO Director's Delegate, who had revoked an Arbitrator's award of statutory accident benefits and ordered a new hearing on the basis of inadequate reasons.

The Divisional Court determined that the standard of review for the adequacy of reasons is correctness.

The Court found that the Arbitrator's reasons were sufficiently thorough to explain her rejection of the insurer's medical expert and her acceptance of the applicant's evidence.

The application for judicial review was allowed, the Director's Delegate's decision was set aside, and the Arbitrator's decision was restored.

The applicant was successful in a preliminary issue hearing determining he was involved in an accident.

He subsequently sought his expenses.

The insurer requested an adjournment of the expense hearing to bring a motion for the arbitrator's recusal based on alleged bias.

The arbitrator denied the adjournment, finding the bias motion was brought over a year after the alleged events and without proper notice.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant his legal fees and disbursements for the preliminary issue hearing, as well as costs for the unnecessary expense hearing and frivolous bias motion.