Matthew J. Sutton

The applicants sought judicial review of an umpire's appraisal award regarding a fire loss at the respondent's property.

The dispute centered on whether an indoor pool could be repaired or required replacement.

The umpire determined repair was not a viable option and awarded replacement cost.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the umpire did not exceed his jurisdiction, as determining the amount of loss includes deciding between repair and replacement.

The court also rejected allegations of bias and procedural fairness, emphasizing the umpire's broad discretion to control the appraisal process.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Tribunal decision barring their civil action for a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant was struck by a dump truck driven by a co-worker while walking back from a personal bank errand during his workday.

The Tribunal found the applicant was in the course of employment because he was required to carry and answer a work-issued cell phone during his break, thereby retaining employer control.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's interpretation of its policies and the resulting decision were reasonable and owed deference.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a psychological condition resulting from a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer argued the applicant was malingering and that any impairment stemmed from a prior 2011 accident.

Despite evidence of the applicant deliberately frustrating the respondent's psychological assessments, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's neuropsychiatrist, finding a marked deterioration in the applicant's mental health.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a Class 4 marked impairment in three spheres and that, but for the 2014 accident exacerbating his pre-existing condition, he would not have sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant was statute-barred from disputing two of the treatment plans because the insurer had provided clear and unequivocal denials more than two years prior to the application.

On the merits, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish that her injuries, including alleged chronic pain and psychological issues, fell outside the MIG.

Consequently, the applicant was bound by the $3,500 funding limit, and the remaining treatment plan was denied.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and medical benefits for various treatments.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to non-earner benefits because they returned to work two days after the accident and did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal also held the applicant failed to prove their injuries, including alleged chronic pain and pre-existing conditions, warranted removal from the MIG.

As the MIG funding limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and examination costs were not payable.

The defendants, Raphael David Junior Hassan and Carol Precious Hassan, brought a motion seeking an order for the plaintiff, Nicola Federico, to attend a further defence neurological examination and to vary a prior court order regarding timelines for defence medical assessments.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendants had not met the test for a further assessment and were not compliant with the existing timeline.

The court granted the defendants' motion, finding a neurological assessment necessary for trial fairness given the plaintiff's ongoing neurological complaints and expert reports.

The court also extended the timeline for the assessment and the service of the responding neurological report, noting the plaintiffs' inconsistent stance on the original deadline.

The applicant brought a motion to remove the insurer's counsel as solicitor of record, alleging a conflict of interest because the same law firm represented the insurer in two separate accident benefits arbitrations involving the applicant.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of a conflict of interest or abuse of process, as both claims were for accident benefits and the duty owed by the insurer to the applicant was the same in both claims.