3 total
Application for statutory accident benefits dismissed as applicant failed to prove employment or substantial inability.
The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his motorcycle and sought statutory accident benefits.
The Insurer terminated his weekly disability benefits, prompting the Applicant to apply for arbitration.
The Applicant claimed he was employed "under the table" at the time of the accident and thus qualified for income benefits under section 12 of the Schedule.
The Arbitrator found the Applicant's evidence regarding his employment lacked credibility and concluded he was not employed at the time of the accident.
Furthermore, the Arbitrator determined the Applicant was not entitled to non-earner benefits under section 13, as he was able to perform the bulk of his pre-accident activities of daily living.
The application was dismissed, and the Applicant was denied his arbitration expenses due to the lack of merit in his case.
EPA conviction restored for chlorine release that seriously injured a worker.
The Crown appealed an acquittal entered on a statutory appeal after a chemical manufacturer had originally been convicted of unlawfully discharging chlorine gas into the natural environment, causing serious injury to a worker.
The Court of Appeal held that s. 14(1) of the Environmental Protection Act applied to a discharge causing an adverse effect on a person even where the impact was confined to a worker at the workplace, and rejected a distinction between direct and consequential effects.
The court further held that the Occupational Health and Safety Act did not oust the application of the Environmental Protection Act, as the two statutes permissibly overlapped and did not conflict.
The original conviction and sentence on the unlawful discharge count were restored.
Certiorari denied despite municipality's failure to give notice of by-law, due to applicant's disentitling conduct.
The appellant developer purchased lots in a subdivision but refused to assume the original subdivider's obligations to install municipal services.
After protracted negotiations failed, the respondent municipality passed a by-law without notice to the appellant, deeming the lots not to be a registered plan of subdivision.
The appellant sought judicial review to quash the by-law.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that while the municipality's action was quasi-judicial and attracted the duty of fairness (audi alteram partem), the discretionary remedy of certiorari was denied because of the appellant's conduct in attempting to avoid its obligations and evade municipal regulation through checkerboarding.
