Michael Bennett

Both the applicant and respondent sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The Vice-Chair found the Tribunal erred in awarding attendant care benefits at the Form 1 amount of $2,894.99 per month for a period when the applicant's wife provided care, reducing it to her actual economic loss of $935.00 per month.

The Vice-Chair also found the Tribunal erred in its formula for calculating the special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 and directed the parties to recalculate it.

The Tribunal did not err in fixing an end date for benefits at the 104-week mark or in finding the respondent unreasonably withheld benefits.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment determination under the mental and behavioural disorder criteria following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer requested a neuropsychological and psychological insurer examination (IE), which the applicant refused to attend, citing severe psychological distress from previous IEs.

The Tribunal held that the applicant is precluded from proceeding with his appeal on the catastrophic determination until the insurer completes the requested IE.

The Tribunal found the IE was reasonably necessary to assess the new catastrophic impairment claim, but imposed conditions on how the IE must be conducted to protect the applicant's psychological well-being.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied further benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered a fractured sternum and psychological impairments, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal awarded income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and certain medical/assessment costs.

Furthermore, the Tribunal granted a special award of 40% of the outstanding attendant care benefits, finding the respondent unreasonably withheld payment by intentionally misrepresenting its assessors' findings to keep the applicant within the MIG.

The respondent brought a motion to exclude a medical report filed by the applicant after the deadline set in a case conference order.

The applicant argued the report was merely supplementary to an earlier report.

The Tribunal found that admitting the report without allowing the respondent to respond would be prejudicial.

To balance the applicant's right to present her case with the respondent's right to procedural fairness, the Tribunal granted the motion in part by adjourning the hearing to allow the respondent to have the applicant assessed and to respond to the late report.

The accused brought a Charter motion seeking a stay for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b).

Applying Jordan, the court held that delay arising from a defence adjournment to contest additional committal submissions under s. 548 of the Criminal Code was defence delay because the position lacked arguable merit, and that delay caused by the accuseds' non-attendance at the preliminary inquiry was also defence delay.

After deducting that time, the net delay fell below the 30-month ceiling.

In the alternative, the court held that the matter also complied with Morin as a transitional case.

Both applications were dismissed.

The applicants sought a determination of whether a lessee of a leased vehicle could access the lessor’s insurance coverage beyond the statutory $1 million cap under s. 267.12 of the Insurance Act following a motor vehicle accident.

They argued that a legislative gap existed between the 2006 amendments to the Insurance Act limiting lessor liability and the later approval of the OEF 110 endorsement restricting coverage for lessees, allowing lessees to access the lessor’s insurance as unnamed insureds during the interim.

The court rejected this argument, holding that s. 267.12 must be interpreted in light of the legislative purpose of protecting lessors and their insurers by capping exposure.

Interpreting the statute to permit lessees to access excess or umbrella policies would undermine the legislative scheme.

The court further held that the excess and umbrella policies at issue did not provide coverage to the lessee based on their wording and the fact that the lessor was not a named insured under the relevant policies.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination by the respondents with respect to employment and contracts, including incidents involving conservation officers.

The respondents requested that the Tribunal dismiss or defer the application because the respondent Ministry was concurrently prosecuting the applicant in the Ontario Court of Justice for charges related to the same incidents.

The applicant consented to the deferral.

The Tribunal ordered the deferral of the application pending the conclusion of the proceedings before the Ontario Court of Justice to avoid duplication of evidence and inconsistent findings.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought interim interim attendant care benefits after fracturing his ankle while awaiting an adjourned interim benefits motion.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was in immediate need of attendant care to prevent further injury and awarded $2,500 per month for two months, pending the full interim motion hearing.

The applicant was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a catastrophic impairment assessment.

After a previous assessment was found non-compliant, the arbitrator ordered a new assessment.

The parties disputed the location of the new assessment, with the applicant preferring Hamilton and the insurer preferring Mississauga.

The arbitrator ordered the assessment to take place in Hamilton, as it was closer to the applicant's residence in Thunder Bay, consistent with the general guideline for choosing designated assessment centres.

The applicant was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The insurer arranged for a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) assessment, which concluded the applicant was not catastrophically impaired based primarily on a paper review.

The applicant sought a further assessment, arguing the DAC process was flawed.

The Arbitrator found that the DAC failed to follow mandatory guidelines, specifically by not including a psychiatrist on the assessment team for mental and behavioural disorders and by failing to conduct a full in-person clinical assessment before rendering a negative finding.

The Arbitrator ordered the insurer to arrange a new, properly conducted CAT DAC assessment.

The Ontario Securities Commission held a hearing to consider sanctions against the respondent for failing to file required insider trading reports, which also constituted a breach of a previous settlement agreement.

The panel approved a settlement agreement between Staff and the respondent, finding it in the public interest.

The respondent was ordered to cease trading in certain securities, reprimanded, and ordered to pay an administrative penalty of $32,000 and costs of $5,000.

The applicant was found severely injured in a driveway between two houses with no memory of the incident.

He claimed statutory accident benefits, alleging he was struck by a motor vehicle.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the injuries resulted from an assault.

After hearing extensive medical expert testimony regarding the pattern and severity of the injuries, the arbitrator concluded on a balance of probabilities that the injuries were consistent with a pedestrian-automobile collision and ruled that the applicant was involved in an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The Crown appealed the dismissal of a dangerous offender application against the respondent, who pleaded guilty to numerous sexual offences against children and child pornography charges.

The trial judge had dismissed the application, holding that the predicate offences were not sufficiently serious to meet the threshold for a dangerous or long-term offender designation.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in law by imposing a seriousness threshold on the circumstances of the predicate offences.

Applying the correct legal framework to the trial judge's factual findings, the Court of Appeal designated the respondent a long-term offender and varied his sentence to time served followed by eight years of community supervision.