Leanne Kenning

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and delayed submitting her application for statutory accident benefits (OCF-1) for approximately six months.

The respondent insurer sought to bar her application under s. 55(1)(1) of the Schedule for failing to provide notice within seven days as required by s. 32(1).

The Tribunal found that while the applicant missed the deadline, she provided a reasonable explanation for the delay, specifically her credible belief that making a claim would negatively affect her husband's insurance rates.

The Tribunal concluded the prejudice to the applicant of being barred from benefits outweighed the prejudice to the insurer, allowing the application to proceed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for medical and rehabilitation treatments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that she failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing medical condition that would entitle her to treatment beyond the MIG cap.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.

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

At the arbitration hearing, the applicant failed to attend.

Her legal representative requested to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, which the arbitrator granted.

As the applicant did not participate and presented no evidence to support her claims, the application for arbitration was dismissed.

The insurer was awarded $250 in expenses.

Following dismissal of an appeal from a master's order, the court considered written submissions regarding costs.

The court applied s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, emphasizing proportionality and the factors governing costs awards.

The court also relied on appellate guidance that costs should be fair and reasonable rather than reflective of full indemnity for actual expenses.

Finding that the successful defendant was entitled to costs, the court awarded partial indemnity costs in a modest all‑inclusive amount.

The plaintiffs appealed a master's order dismissing their motion for answers to refusals arising from an examination for discovery.

The master held that because the action had been set down for trial, the plaintiffs required leave under rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bring a refusals motion, and no such leave had been sought.

The appeal court reviewed conflicting jurisprudence on whether leave is required for refusals motions after an action is set down for trial.

The court endorsed the line of authority requiring leave and found that the master properly exercised discretion in declining to hear the motion in the absence of a request for leave.

The appeal was dismissed, though the plaintiffs remained at liberty to seek leave to bring a refusals motion.