Michael Unea

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a lower court decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The Divisional Court dismissed the moving party's motion for leave to appeal a decision dated June 27, 2024.

Costs were awarded to the responding party in the amount of $5,000.00.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), medical benefits for chiropractic and psychological treatment, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to IRBs, as medical evidence and surveillance footage showing the applicant performing heavy lifting for his pre-accident employer contradicted his claim of substantial inability to work.

The claim for chiropractic treatment was dismissed as duplicative of an already approved plan.

However, the Tribunal granted the unapproved portion of the psychological treatment plan, preferring the treating providers' recommendation of 1.5-hour sessions over the insurer's examination assessor's unexplained recommendation of 1.0-hour sessions.

The claim for an award was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue psychological benefit.

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 Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with section 33 requests for medical records, relieving the insurer of liability to pay the disputed benefits.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate that her physical or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The application for treatment plans, interest, and an award was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued that a pre-existing condition warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law and fact by failing to remove her from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions and psychological impairments, and by applying an incorrect test for reasonable and necessary treatment.

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

The adjudicator correctly concluded that an exacerbation of a pre-existing injury is insufficient to remove an insured from the MIG without compelling evidence that it prevents maximal recovery, and properly precluded the psychological claims due to the applicant's failure to attend an insurer examination.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied four treatment and assessment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the April 2018 chiropractic treatment plan was partially reasonable and necessary, and that the respondent failed to provide a compliant denial notice under section 38 of the Schedule, making it liable for incurred expenses during the non-compliance period.

The Tribunal also approved a March 2019 psychological treatment plan.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for a July 2018 chiropractic plan and a physiatry assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to psychological injuries and pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a psychological impairment or that his pre-existing conditions would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG limit.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for additional medical benefits and interest were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued that pre-existing shoulder injuries and headaches should remove him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical documentation to establish a pre-existing condition that would prevent him from achieving maximal medical recovery within the MIG.

As the applicant had already exhausted the $3,500 MIG limit, the claims for further physiotherapy and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits, cost of examinations, and a non-earner benefit.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from chronic pain, a psychological impairment, or a pre-existing condition that would remove her from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not meet the Heath test to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), capping benefits at $3,500.

The applicant argued that he sustained psychological injuries that removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which included validity testing indicating symptom magnification, over the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG cap.

A preliminary motion by the respondent to strike the applicant's Reply submissions for case splitting was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the action to the Small Claims Court after settling the main action with the plaintiff.

The third party opposed the transfer, arguing that it had incurred over $60,000 in defence costs over seven years of litigation in the Superior Court, which would not be recoverable in Small Claims Court.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding that a transfer at this late stage would prejudice the third party and would not secure the most just, expeditious, and least expensive determination of the remaining issues.

The appellant appealed from the dismissal of his motion to set aside a settlement and consent order dismissing his action.

The appellant acknowledged signing the settlement but argued he did so following a lengthy examination while suffering from a headache and other ailments, claiming incapacity.

The motion judge found the appellant had not met his burden of proof and there was no legally justifiable reason to set aside the settlement.

The Court of Appeal affirmed this decision, finding the evidence fell short of establishing incapacity.

The appellant also challenged the costs award, but the court found the official transcript supported the formal order and declined to interfere.

The self-represented appellant appealed an order dismissing his motion to set aside a settlement and consent dismissal order.

The Divisional Court raised the issue of its jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction under s. 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act because the order appealed from was not for the payment of money, and the original claim was for $100,000, which exceeded the monetary limit.

The appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal.

The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing claims arising from a motor vehicle collision allegedly caused by a boulder connected to landscaping work at neighbouring residential properties.

The plaintiff pursued liability based on private nuisance, public nuisance, and the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher after conceding other pleaded claims.

The court held that private nuisance does not apply to personal injury or damage to personal property, and that the alleged temporary presence of the boulder on the roadway did not satisfy the public interest element required for public nuisance.

The court further found that ordinary residential landscaping work is not a non-natural use of land for purposes of the Rylands v. Fletcher rule.

Summary judgment was granted and the claims against the moving defendants were dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a motor vehicle accident claim on the basis that it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The central issue was when the claim became discoverable under s. 5 of the Act, given the statutory threshold requirement for serious and permanent impairment under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court held that discoverability required a sufficient body of medical evidence demonstrating that the plaintiff’s injuries met the statutory threshold.

Because the first medical opinion diagnosing serious and permanent impairment arose in June 2010, the claim issued in May 2012 was within the limitation period.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and partial summary judgment was granted to the plaintiff dismissing the limitation defence.