Matthew Samuels

The applicant insurance company brought an application to the Superior Court seeking an order to compel the production of records from non-parties for an ongoing License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) proceeding regarding statutory accident benefits.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the LAT has exclusive jurisdiction over disputes for statutory automobile accident benefits under section 280 of the Insurance Act.

The proper forum to address non-compliance with production orders is at the LAT hearing.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding she was not an 'insured person' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The appellant's uninsured son was in an accident, and they sought benefits under her brother's spouse's policy, requiring proof of dependency.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LAT did not breach procedural fairness by holding a written hearing and made no error of law in applying both a 'big picture' and mathematical approach to conclude the appellant was not principally dependent on the named insured.

The appellant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer subsequently initiated a priority dispute with the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund and denied further benefits.

At the Licence Appeal Tribunal, the insurer successfully moved to determine as a preliminary issue whether the appellant was an 'insured person', resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's claim.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the LAT's decision to proceed with the preliminary issue while the priority dispute was pending constituted an abuse of process, as it undermined the 'pay now, dispute later' statutory scheme designed to ensure continuity of benefits.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that barred her application for statutory accident benefits based on res judicata.

The Tribunal had previously determined her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The appellant argued the insurer failed to provide proper notice under s. 38(9) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and that new medical evidence warranted waiving res judicata.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the insurer had previously provided the required notice and was not obligated to issue repeated notices.

The court also upheld the Tribunal's finding that the proposed fresh evidence could have been obtained earlier and did not justify waiving res judicata.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Tristian Howell, to produce private electronic communications exchanged with the deceased, Sean McDonnell, to challenge Howell's status as a "spouse" under the Family Law Act for a damages claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the potential probative value of the messages was minimal compared to the significant time, expense, and undue prejudice to the plaintiff.

The decision emphasized the high expectation of privacy for intimate communications and the ample existing evidence supporting the cohabitation period.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, who was ordinarily resident outside Ontario (Lithuania) and claimed impecuniosity.

The court applied the two-stage test for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) and (e).

The plaintiff successfully demonstrated impecuniosity with robust particularity and showed that her personal injury claim, involving an objective shoulder fracture from a slip and fall on ice, was not clearly devoid of merit.

Consequently, the motion for security for costs was dismissed, and the defendants were ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.