Lori Marzinotto

The applicant sought $1,153.17 for assistive devices following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the devices were reasonable and necessary, as occupational therapy assessments indicated she could complete transfers and bathing independently.

The claims for the treatment plan, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought $1,153.17 for assistive devices under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the treatment plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed assistive devices, including a raised toilet seat, tub transfer bench, and grab bar, were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant demonstrated independence in transfers and personal care, and there was no corroborating medical opinion recommending the items for safety.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award were denied.

The applicant, catastrophically impaired after being struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian, sought attendant care benefits (ACB), apartment rental costs for an independent living trial, a special award, and interest.

The Tribunal found the applicant entitled to the higher ACB quantum of $3,028.54 per month, rejecting the insurer's reliance on superseded guidelines to cap hourly rates below minimum wage.

However, past ACB was not payable as it was provided by the applicant's mother without demonstrated economic loss.

The claim for apartment rental costs was dismissed as it did not qualify as a rehabilitation benefit under s. 16(3) of the Schedule.

Claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant was statute-barred from claiming income replacement benefits because she failed to dispute the denial within the two-year limitation period.

While the claims for a chronic pain assessment and functional abilities evaluation were not statute-barred due to invalid denial notices, the Tribunal dismissed all claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits, finding the applicant failed to demonstrate they were reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest, an award, and costs were also dismissed.

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

At the hearing, the applicant failed to attend and his counsel had no instructions or evidence to present.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's requests for adjournment.

Because the applicant failed to provide submissions or evidence, he did not meet his onus to prove entitlement to the benefits.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded $500 in costs due to the applicant's frivolous conduct in failing to participate meaningfully in the proceedings.

The defendants sought leave to amend their statement of defence and add a counterclaim for $800,000 for damages due to delay and deficiencies in a construction project.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the counterclaim was statute-barred.

The court denied leave to add the counterclaim, finding it was outside the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002, and no evidence refuted the statutory presumption of discoverability.

However, the court permitted amendments to the defence to assert the claims as an equitable set-off, noting that limitation periods do not apply to set-off claims as they are regarded as equitable defences under the Courts of Justice Act.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

Following a trial, the plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of $217,368.13 against all defendants on a joint and several basis.

The parties had previously agreed that $70,000 was a reasonable amount for partial indemnity costs.

The court found that the conduct of the participating defendant did not justify an award of full indemnity costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs in the agreed amount of $70,000, payable jointly and severally by all defendants.

The plaintiff creditor sought a declaration that a mortgage registered in favour of a third party constituted a fraudulent conveyance under s. 2 of the Fraudulent Conveyances Act.

The mortgage had been granted after the plaintiff had commenced legal proceedings and purportedly secured an alleged pre‑existing debt.

The court found the underlying debt was statute‑barred under the applicable limitation periods and therefore did not constitute valid consideration for the promissory note or mortgage.

The surrounding circumstances, including the timing of the security and the relationship between the parties, constituted badges of fraud.

The mortgage was declared void as against the plaintiff.

A contractor sought payment for remedial road repairs following settlement of municipal sewer trench backfill completed under contract with a municipality.

The contractor alleged the work was extra to the contract and alternatively claimed compensation on a quantum meruit or unjust enrichment basis, asserting that native soil specified for backfill was too wet to compact properly.

The municipality maintained that settlement resulted from insufficient compaction at the lower levels of the trench and that the contractor was contractually responsible for remediation at no additional cost.

The court accepted expert evidence that settlement was caused by poorly compacted backfill and found the contractor failed to prove unsuitable soil or any oral agreement for additional compensation.

The court held the remedial work was required due to deficiencies in the contractor’s work.

The moving party sought to set aside an assessment officer’s report and certificate assessing a solicitor’s account arising from legal services in litigation involving a family dispute over powers of attorney.

The court held that a motion opposing confirmation of a certificate under the Solicitor’s Act is in the nature of an appeal and generally limited to the evidentiary record before the assessment officer.

New affidavit evidence alleging lack of retainer, conflict, and solicitor negligence was excluded because it had not been before the assessment officer and no motion to admit fresh evidence was brought.

The court further found no jurisdictional error in the assessment officer proceeding with the assessment and no error in principle in calculating the assessed fees.

The motion to set aside the assessment was dismissed.

The moving parties sought to set aside an Order for Assessment and subsequent costs order relating to a solicitor’s accounts.

The moving party asserted that she never retained the solicitor and therefore should not have been subject to the assessment process.

The court held that to set aside an assessment order there must be a bona fide dispute regarding the existence of the retainer, and mere assertions are insufficient.

Reviewing documentary evidence including signed client forms, engagement correspondence, payment of an initial retainer, and communications acknowledging the solicitor-client relationship, the court found overwhelming evidence that the solicitor had been retained.

The court concluded that the motion was based on unsupported and disingenuous claims and dismissed it.

The appellant client appealed an order varying an Assessment Officer's report.

The motion judge found that the Assessment Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by determining that the appellant was not a client of the respondent solicitor, which constituted a dispute over the retainer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the Assessment Officer improperly determined a retainer issue.

The court also upheld the motion judge's order imposing joint and several liability, noting the parties had previously consented to proceed by assessment on that basis.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision finding that work performed on the leased premises constituted leasehold improvements rather than structural repairs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding, noting the premises were taken on an 'as is' basis and the tenant failed to obtain the landlord's approval as required by the lease.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant tenant operated a gas bar on premises leased from the respondent landlord.

After discovering a failed underground fuel line, the tenant capped it, terminated the lease, and vacated the premises, leaving the underground tanks and lines behind.

The landlord successfully applied for a declaration that the lease required the tenant to repair the tanks and lines.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that the underground tanks and lines were 'trade fixtures' rather than 'improvements' under the lease.

Because the lease's repair obligation applied only to improvements, the tenant had no duty to repair the trade fixtures.

The appeal was allowed and the landlord's application was dismissed.

The appellants, who were self-represented at the time, appealed a master's order striking out their statement of defence for failing to comply with production orders.

On appeal, the Divisional Court admitted fresh evidence under the Palmer test, finding it provided context to the appellants' actions and showed they were not deliberately flouting court orders.

The court allowed the appeal, holding that the master denied the appellants procedural fairness by failing to explain the severe consequences of the motion, not inviting submissions on the specific issue of striking the defence, and ignoring a less drastic alternative proposed by the respondent's counsel.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment regarding the calculation of damages for loss of profit.

The Court of Appeal found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's admission of business records under section 35 of the Evidence Act, the weighing of expert opinion, or the damage calculation itself.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $6,500.

The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal an order made on the eve of trial that struck the action from the trial list, required a formal motion to amend the Statement of Claim before a Master, and ordered substantial costs thrown away.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions or good reason to doubt the correctness of the trial judge's order, which addressed a unique and complicated situation.

Costs of the leave motion were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis.