8 total
Application for accident benefits dismissed as applicant failed to provide medical evidence supporting removal from MIG.
The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The applicant claimed entitlement to a $3,281.98 chiropractic treatment plan.
The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical documentation to support removal from the MIG or to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary.
Relying on the respondent's insurer's examination report, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were minor and dismissed the application in its entirety.
The court refused to award substantial indemnity costs because the plaintiff's offer to settle lacked clarity and a genuine compromise.
Echelon Environmental Inc. sought to vary a costs disposition in its favour, requesting substantial indemnity costs after an Offer to Settle, arguing its judgment was greater than the offer.
The target defendant, Jeda Rose Management Inc., opposed this.
The court found Echelon's Offer to Settle lacked clarity regarding pre-judgment interest calculation and that the $2,000 discount from the judgment amount did not fulfill the incentive to settlement under Rule 49.10.
The court exercised its discretion under Section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, refusing to apply Rule 49.10 and maintaining the original costs award of $22,500.00.
Insurer ordered to pay income replacement benefits as business owner remained completely disabled from suitable employment.
The applicant, a business owner, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits for over three years.
The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant could engage in suitable employment and had returned to work.
The arbitrator found that the applicant's physical and psychological impairments, including the need for hygiene assistance, prevented him from engaging in his former employment or any suitable employment.
The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay income replacement benefits of $400 per week, plus interest on overdue amounts.
Liquor licence suspended for 15 days for permitting unlawful gambling and drunkenness on premises.
The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued Notices of Proposal to suspend the respondent's liquor licence for alleged violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.
The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that the licensee permitted unlawful gambling (poker games) and a drunken patron on the premises.
The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a 15-day suspension of the liquor licence.
Board orders mutual disclosure of witnesses and expert reports 10 days before liquor licence suspension hearing.
At a pre-hearing conference regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend a liquor licence due to allegations of unlawful gambling, the Board ordered mutual disclosure of witness lists, evidence summaries, and any expert reports to be completed ten days prior to the scheduled hearing.
Liquor licence suspended for nine days on consent for permitting drunken patrons on premises.
The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the respondent for permitting drunken patrons on the premises.
The matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.
The Board accepted the joint submission and ordered a nine-day suspension of the liquor licence.
Condominium parking by-law upheld but arbitrary fine amount reduced to proven infractions.
The appellant appealed a decision granting the respondent condominium corporation relief to enforce a parking by-law and rules.
The appellant argued the by-law was invalidly passed, unreasonable, and selectively enforced.
The Court of Appeal dismissed these arguments, finding evidence supported the by-law's validity, reasonableness, and consistent enforcement.
However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding the quantum of parking fines, reducing the arbitrary $6,000 award to the proven amount of $2,440.
Appeal of oppression remedy buyout order dismissed; trial judge's findings of fact were reasonable.
The appellants appealed a trial judgment that found the respondent was a 25% shareholder in the family cartage business and had been oppressed.
The trial judge had ordered the appellants to buy out the respondent's interest at fair market value without a minority discount.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's findings of fact were reasonable, the remedy showed no error in principle, and the costs award was a proper exercise of judicial discretion.
