Michael Sloniowski

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action, arguing that civil jury trials would be unavailable for the foreseeable future due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that a jury would not represent a cross-section of the community.

The court dismissed the motion, adopting a 'wait and see' approach to allow the newly implemented Central East Region protocol for civil trials to evolve.

The court found no evidence that jury composition had deteriorated and held that striking the jury based on anticipated delay was premature.

The appellant insurer appealed an Arbitrator's decision finding that the respondent's election to opt out of Workplace Safety and Insurance Act benefits was not made primarily for the purpose of claiming statutory accident benefits.

The insurer argued that the respondent's tort claim in North Carolina was not viable due to contributory negligence and the involvement of an unidentified driver.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that the Arbitrator's conclusions regarding the respondent's bona fide intent to pursue a tort claim were findings of fact supported by evidence, which an appellate body limited to reviewing errors of law cannot overturn.

During a civil jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court ruled on whether questions regarding the plaintiff's future loss of income, future medical treatment, and future mileage expenses should be put to the jury.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidentiary foundation, such as vocational, occupational, or economic expert evidence, to support these claims.

Concluding that leaving these questions to the jury would invite speculation, the court ruled that the questions would not be put to the jury.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that the insured was entitled to ongoing income replacement benefits and that CPP child benefits were not deductible from those benefits.

The insured cross-appealed the arbitrator's finding that she was not catastrophically impaired, arguing the arbitrator erred in assessing her psychological whole person impairment at 28%.

The Director's Delegate dismissed both appeals.

The Delegate held that CPP child benefits are not 'disability pension benefits' under the Schedule and are therefore not deductible.

The Delegate also found that the arbitrator's factual findings on causation for the insured's disc herniations and conversion disorder were supported by evidence and reasonable.

Finally, the Delegate upheld the arbitrator's use of a hybrid approach to rate the insured's psychological impairment, finding it was a reasonable exercise of discretion that did not constitute an error of law.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits for attendant care and housekeeping services provided by his separated wife, daughter, and a lawn care company.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the expenses were not 'incurred' under section 3(7)(e) of the 2010 SABS because the family members did not sustain an economic loss.

The Director's Delegate upheld the Arbitrator's decision, finding that the appellant failed to prove the family members suffered an economic loss, such as lost income or out-of-pocket expenses, as a result of providing the services.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision finding that its commercial general liability insurance policy did not cover its distribution centres.

The application judge found the policy ambiguous and relied on uncontroverted extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intentions regarding coverage.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the finding of ambiguity and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to the respondent.