Mikhail Shloznikov

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision finding that a wheel loader was an 'automobile' for the purposes of statutory accident benefits.

At the LAT hearing, both parties conceded that the wheel loader was not an automobile in ordinary parlance, focusing their arguments on the third part of the Adams test.

However, the LAT decided the case based on the first part of the test without seeking further submissions.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the LAT breached procedural fairness by rejecting the parties' concession without giving them an opportunity to make full submissions on the issue.

The matter was remitted to a different adjudicator.

At a case conference, the Licence Appeal Tribunal sought leave to participate substantively in an appeal and judicial review of its decision regarding whether a wheel loader is an 'automobile' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent injured party was not participating in the appeal.

The court applied the Goodis and Ontario Power Generation factors and granted the Tribunal expanded participation on all issues, provided it does not advocate for a particular outcome or adopt an adversarial tone.

The defendant Intact Insurance brought a motion for leave to amend its Third-Party Claim against Ashley Zenguele and Justyne Burger-Samuels.

The defendant WTH Car Rental ULC opposed the motion, arguing potential prejudice.

The court applied Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that WTH Car Rental ULC lacked standing to oppose the amendment as it was not a party to the Third-Party Claim.

The proposed amendments did not introduce a new cause of action and arose from the same factual matrix.

The court found no non-compensable prejudice to WTH Car Rental ULC, noting that any potential exposure to judgment was an outcome of the amended claim, not the amendment itself.

Leave to amend was granted, with a condition that WTH Car Rental ULC be notified of any default judgment proceedings.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24.01.

The action arose from a 2013 contractual dispute over HVAC services.

The plaintiff's counsel experienced a series of severe personal and professional crises, including the death of a colleague, illness, and a ransomware attack, which caused significant delay.

The court found the delay was not intentional and that the defendant failed to establish a substantial risk to a fair trial, noting the defendant's own failure to preserve evidence.

The motion to dismiss was denied and the action was permitted to proceed.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff’s motion to set aside an order dismissing the action, the court addressed the defendants’ claim for costs.

The defendants sought over $27,000 in legal fees and additional disbursements, relying on extensive work performed by multiple lawyers, clerks, and students.

The court accepted that the motion’s outcome was predictable and found the staffing and hours claimed by the defendants excessive given the straightforward nature of the motion.

While acknowledging that law firms may allocate work among multiple professionals, the court held that the losing party should not bear the costs of training junior counsel.

Costs were fixed at $13,000 payable by the plaintiff.

The parties jointly sought a modification to an existing timetable set out in a prior endorsement regarding the delivery of factums.

The court accepted the parties’ agreement to extend the plaintiff’s deadline for serving a factum and the defendant’s corresponding deadline.

The court ordered the revised timetable and directed that, once factums are delivered, counsel arrange a conference call with the court to schedule a date for oral argument.