Michael Rotondo

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an order of C.M. Smith dated December 10, 2025.

After being advised that the Court of Appeal determined the underlying order was a final order, the Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered no costs.

The moving party brought a motion to quash the insurers' appeal of an order denying them leave to amend their pleadings to add the defence of civil fraud.

The moving party argued the order was interlocutory and should be appealed to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal held that an order refusing leave to amend a pleading to advance a new substantive defence is a final order.

Because the order foreclosed the insurers' ability to assert the distinct defence of civil fraud, the appeal properly lies to the Court of Appeal.

The motion to quash was denied.

The applicant sought payment for outstanding balances on two chiropractic treatment plans and an MRI following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the adjusted hourly rate for the chiropractic services was correct under the Professional Services Guideline and the cost of gloves was not payable.

The Tribunal also found the MRI was not reasonable and necessary as it was reasonably available through OHIP.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit (NEB), interest, and an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as her injuries continuously prevented her from engaging in pre-accident childcare and housekeeping activities.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's physiatrist over the insurer's section 44 assessors.

The applicant was awarded the NEB and interest, but the claim for a section 10 award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct did not rise to the level of being unreasonable.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits (NEBs) following a motor vehicle accident, arguing the insurer failed to properly deny the NEB claim after initially paying income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal held that the acceptance and payment of IRBs implied a denial of NEBs, as the two benefits are mutually exclusive under the current Schedule.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet the substantive test for NEBs, as evidence demonstrated she had returned to work, drove her own vehicle, and performed housekeeping tasks, meaning she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which dismissed his application for lack of jurisdiction because he had not returned $90,000 in settlement funds as required by s. 9.1(8) of Regulation 664.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law by not first determining if the settlement was valid and breached procedural fairness by not ruling on a motion to strike reply submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or breach of procedural fairness, as the return of settlement funds is a mandatory precondition to disputing a settlement's validity.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment determination at the Licence Appeal Tribunal following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue, arguing the parties had entered into a valid full and final settlement in 2013 for $90,000, and that the applicant was prohibited from applying to the Tribunal because he had not returned the settlement funds as required by section 9.1(8) of Regulation 664.

The applicant argued the settlement was invalid due to technical defects in the Settlement Disclosure Notice.

The Tribunal found that the requirement to return settlement funds under section 9.1(8) is mandatory before the Tribunal can adjudicate the validity of a settlement.

As the applicant had not returned the funds, the application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The Applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Respondent denied the benefits, citing the Applicant's failure to comply with requests for information under section 33 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant substantially complied with the requests and that the Respondent had agreed to pay the benefits subject to calculating quantum.

The Tribunal awarded IRBs at a rate of $30.29 per week for a limited period, based on self-employment income reported to the CRA, and denied further benefits as the Applicant had returned to work.

The Tribunal also ordered interest and a 20% award under section 10 of Regulation 664 due to the Respondent's unreasonable delay in calculating and paying the benefits.

This is an appeal from an Associate Judge's interlocutory order dismissing a motion to extend discovery time limits in a simplified procedure action and to examine non-parties.

The Associate Judge had concluded she lacked discretion to extend time under Rule 76.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellate court found that the Associate Judge erred in this conclusion, holding that general rules (such as Rule 3.02) allow for extension of time limits in simplified procedure actions unless explicitly exempted.

The court set aside the order dismissing the appellants' motion and dismissed the respondent's cross-appeal regarding costs and examination of non-parties.

The matter was remitted to the Associate Judge for further orders consistent with the finding of discretion.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal, the defendants sought costs of $11,073.92, which included cancellation fees for missed defence medical assessments.

The court held that the cancellation fees were outside the purview of appeal costs and could be pursued at trial or by separate motion.

The court awarded the successful defendants costs of the appeal fixed at $4,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The plaintiff appealed an order of an Associate Judge requiring her to attend in-person defence medical examinations with a physiatrist and a neuropsychologist.

The plaintiff had refused to attend due to fears of contracting COVID-19.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Associate Judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding that the in-person examinations were necessary and that the assessment facility's COVID-19 safety protocols were adequate.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a chiropractic treatment plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the respondent insurer failed to provide proper notice of denial for the IRBs under section 36(4) of the Schedule until October 30, 2017.

Consequently, the applicant was awarded IRBs from the date the completed disability certificate was submitted until the date of proper notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for the treatment plan, finding the respondent's notice of denial was compliant and the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary.

The defendants brought a motion to extend the allotted discovery time under the simplified procedure rules to examine two non-parties.

The plaintiff had strictly enforced the three-hour limit under Rule 76.04(2) during his examination, despite having examined the defendants for over five hours.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct to be sharp practice but concluded it had no discretion to extend the time limit under Rule 76.04(2).

The motion was dismissed, but the defendants were awarded costs due to the plaintiff's lack of professional courtesy.

The respondent insurer filed a request for reconsideration of a Tribunal decision awarding the applicant non-earner benefits and a medical benefit due to the insurer's procedural non-compliance.

The insurer argued that procedural breaches should not automatically result in substantive entitlement and that the Tribunal ignored the applicant's own procedural delays.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or fact.

The adjudicator confirmed that section 36(6) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule is a mandatory 'shall-pay' provision, and that the insurer's reasons for denying the medical benefit were insufficient to meet its obligations under section 38.

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

The insurer denied the applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit on the basis that she was employed at the time of the accident and therefore qualified for an income replacement benefit instead.

More than four years later, the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal to dispute the denial.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the application was statute-barred.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's initial explanation of benefits constituted a clear and unequivocal denial that met the legal requirements to trigger the two-year limitation period.

As the applicant failed to dispute the denial within the limitation period, her application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and a medical benefit for chiropractic services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the respondent insurer failed to comply with the notice requirements under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Specifically, the insurer failed to respond after receiving medical documents requested under section 33 for the non-earner benefit, and provided deficient medical reasons for denying the treatment plan.

As a result of these procedural breaches, both benefits were deemed payable.

The Tribunal also ordered a 20% special award under section 10 of Regulation 664, finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld payment by completely neglecting to adjust the non-earner benefit claim after receiving the requested documents.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle in a parking lot and sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits for chiropractic services.

The adjudicator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in employment after the first 104 weeks, relying on independent medical examinations which concluded she could perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The adjudicator also found that the proposed chiropractic treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

All claims, including those for interest and a special award, were dismissed.

The plaintiff appealed a Deputy Judge's decision dismissing his action after refusing to grant an adjournment on the first day of trial.

The plaintiff's counsel requested the adjournment to obtain newly discovered documents relating to the value of the damaged car, but failed to adequately explain the nature of the documents or why they were not produced earlier.

The Divisional Court found that while the Deputy Judge's decision was understandable given counsel's inadequate submissions, the interests of justice required granting the adjournment so the case could be resolved on its merits.

The appeal was allowed and the dismissal set aside, though the $1,000 costs award to the defendant for the trial attendance was upheld.

The respondent was involved in a motor vehicle accident while his driver's licence was suspended for unpaid fines, a fact of which he was unaware.

The appellant insurer denied coverage on the basis that the respondent was not authorized by law to drive.

The trial judge granted relief from forfeiture under s. 129 of the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that s. 129 only grants discretion to relieve against forfeiture for imperfect compliance with post-loss requirements, such as proof of loss, and does not apply to pre-loss breaches of policy conditions.