Michael Krylov

The applicants commenced an application under Rule 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order for the York Regional Police to produce unredacted records relating to a fatal accident investigation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that Rule 30.10 contemplates a motion within an existing action, not an originating application.

Furthermore, the applicants failed to name the police as a respondent, failed to file a mandatory factum, and failed to address the legal test for non-party production.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, relying on insurer examination reports that indicated symptom magnification and an ability to perform pre-accident activities.

The claim for physiotherapy was also dismissed as the applicant provided no supporting evidence or submissions.

The respondent's request for costs was denied for failing to comply with the Tribunal's procedural rules.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient objective medical evidence to establish that the applicant suffered from accident-related chronic pain or that pre-existing conditions prevented her recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal also found the disputed physiotherapy treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for chiropractic treatment on July 24, 2017.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal on September 10, 2020.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the claim was statute-barred under s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's July 24, 2017 letter constituted a clear and unequivocal denial, triggering the two-year limitation period.

Although a subsequent letter from the respondent was confusing, it did not restart the limitation period.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was statute-barred from pursuing the claim.

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

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing injuries and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that prevented maximal recovery, and failed to establish a diagnosis of chronic pain.

The application was dismissed as the applicant had already exhausted the $3,500 MIG limit.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a concussion, which falls outside the Schedule's definition of a minor injury, thereby removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal further held that the disputed $3,297.08 physiotherapy treatment plan was reasonable and necessary to treat the applicant's accident-related injuries, which had been exacerbated by a subsequent accident.

The treatment plan was ordered payable with interest.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought funding for four physiotherapy treatment plans beyond the $3,500 limit of the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing back pain and chronic pain removed the injuries from the MIG.

The adjudicator found insufficient evidence of an exacerbation of a pre-existing condition or a chronic pain condition, noting the applicant's continued high level of functionality and lack of reliance on prescription medication.

The application was dismissed as the injuries fell within the MIG and the funding limit had been exhausted.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing to obtain additional evidence, with the consent of the respondent.

The Tribunal denied the request, emphasizing that under its Practice Direction, adjournments are only granted in exceptional circumstances, even when all parties consent.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's failure to gather necessary evidence in a timely manner did not constitute exceptional circumstances.

The Court of Appeal previously dismissed the appeal with costs.

In this costs endorsement, the court fixed the costs of the respondents Ivandaeva Total Image Salon Inc. and Denis Ivandaev.

Noting that their counsel provided very little assistance on the central issue of the appeal, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale fixed at $3,000 inclusive of disbursements, plus GST.

The respondent Elena Ivandaeva did not participate and was not awarded costs.

The appellants, defendants in commercial litigation, sought to set aside a sealing order made in a separate matrimonial proceeding involving the plaintiff.

The appellants' counsel had accessed the matrimonial file, which had not been physically sealed due to an administrative error, and copied documents to use in the commercial litigation.

The motion judge ordered the appellants to comply with the sealing order and dismissed their cross-motion to set it aside.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants were not 'persons affected' by the sealing order within the meaning of Rule 37.14(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as their proprietary or economic interests were not directly affected, and therefore they lacked standing to challenge it.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits from the transit insurer following a bus accident.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant was covered under her estranged husband's policy with another insurer and had wilfully misrepresented her coverage status on her application.

The arbitrator found that the applicant, through her legal representative, intentionally or recklessly failed to disclose her spouse's insurance policy on her application.

As a result, the applicant was precluded from receiving benefits from the transit insurer due to wilful misrepresentation under subsection 48(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The application was dismissed with no costs awarded.

Following a decision denying the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits, both parties sought their expenses for the arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had engaged in wilful misrepresentation, delayed the resolution of the matter, and abused the tribunal's process.

Consequently, the applicant was denied his expenses.

The insurer was awarded its full claimed expenses of $14,960.76, as the applicant's conduct unnecessarily prolonged and obstructed the proceedings.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed severe psychological problems, including delusions and paranoia.

He applied for income replacement benefits, which the insurer denied on the basis that his psychological condition was pre-existing and not caused by the accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was a 'thin-skulled' individual whose vulnerable defences were overwhelmed by the accident, establishing causation.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits, but his claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer had not unreasonably delayed or withheld benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement and supplementary medical expenses, following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated benefits and sought repayment, alleging wilful misrepresentation due to the applicant's failure to disclose multiple other motor vehicle accidents and pre-existing injuries.

The arbitrator found the applicant to be an unreliable historian and concluded he failed to prove that his ongoing complaints were caused by the subject accident or that they prevented him from working.

The claims for benefits and a special award were dismissed.

The arbitrator ordered the applicant to repay all benefits received after a subsequent undisclosed accident, finding his failure to report it constituted wilful misrepresentation.

The insurer's request for an assessment against the applicant for a frivolous arbitration was denied.