Margaret (Rita) Gratsias

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action arising from a trip and fall over a black cable in a gym weight room.

The court found numerous conflicting factual issues regarding the location of employees, the visibility of the cable, and whether a liability waiver was brought to the plaintiff's attention.

Concluding that a fair and just determination could not be made on the documentary record, the court declined to use its expanded fact-finding powers and dismissed the motion, awarding costs to the plaintiff.

The appellant infant, through her litigation guardian, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her attendant care benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant claimed that a motor vehicle accident caused her premature birth, which in turn caused her to suffer from gastroesophageal reflux disease requiring attendant care.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Adjudicator's factual determination that the infant did not require attendant care beyond normal parental duties was supported by the evidence and determinative of the claim, rendering the legal issues regarding causation moot.

The applicants sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied further claims and sought repayment of benefits already paid, alleging that the collision was staged and the applicants wilfully misrepresented material facts.

At a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator found the applicants to be credible and concluded that any inconsistencies in their evidence were due to the ordinary fragility of memory rather than a conspiracy.

The arbitrator held that the applicants did not wilfully misrepresent material facts and dismissed the insurer's claims for repayment.

In a dispute over statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, the insurer sought a pre-hearing production order for the applicant's 2006 and 2007 income tax returns.

The applicant claimed caregiver benefits, alleging he was the primary caregiver for his children.

The arbitrator found that the tax returns, specifically the child care expense deductions, were directly relevant to the caregiver claim.

The applicant was ordered to produce the requested tax returns.