Mireille Dahab

The appellant, who was deemed catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision dismissing his claim for attendant care benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT Vice-Chair erred in law by providing inadequate, conclusory reasons and conflating the test for 'reasonable and necessary' expenses with procedural non-compliance.

The court set aside the LAT decision and remitted the matter for a fresh hearing before a differently constituted tribunal.

The appellant, a telecommunications company, filed GST returns claiming substantial tax refunds under the Excise Tax Act.

Following an audit, the Minister issued assessments disallowing input tax credits and imposing gross negligence penalties.

Rather than appealing to the Tax Court of Canada, the appellant brought an application for judicial review in Federal Court seeking declarations that the assessments breached procedural fairness, lacked an evidentiary foundation, and were issued for an improper purpose.

The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed the appeal, holding that the application was bereft of any possibility of success: the first two claims were properly within the Tax Court's exclusive jurisdiction as attacks on the correctness of assessments, the improper purpose claim was unsupported by any pleaded facts, and all three declarations sought would have had no practical effect given the absence of a live controversy apart from the correctness of the assessments.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard an appeal from a jury verdict and costs endorsement in a personal injury action.

The appellants (defendants) challenged the admissibility of a SPECT scan, the exclusion of attendant care forms for credibility, and jury instructions on causation and damages.

They also appealed the trial judge's refusal to deduct non-earner benefits from the tort award and the costs award.

The Court dismissed the appeals regarding the SPECT scan, attendant care forms, and jury instructions.

However, it allowed the appeal in part, ruling that non-earner benefits are deductible from the past income loss award, clarifying the "silo" approach under the Insurance Act.

The appeal on costs was dismissed, and the respondent was awarded costs for the appeal.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the application, finding that the applicant ought to have pursued a statutory appeal under s. 11(6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, 1999, which limits appeals to questions of law.

The court held there were no exceptional circumstances to justify bypassing the statutory appeal mechanism and declined to convert the application into an appeal.

The application was dismissed without prejudice to the applicant seeking an extension of time to pursue a statutory appeal.

The plaintiffs, Iris Technologies Inc. and ICE Wireless Inc., commenced an action against TELUS Communications Company for breach of contract and unlawful interference with economic relations.

TELUS brought a motion to temporarily stay the action, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction or was not the appropriate forum, as the core dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).

The court granted a temporary stay, finding that the factual and legal underpinnings of the civil action and the CRTC proceedings were the same, and the predicate misconduct concerned matters within the CRTC's specialized expertise.

The appellant purchased a used car from the respondent that proved defective.

At trial in Small Claims Court, the appellant was awarded repair costs but denied damages for a 34-month car rental and a full refund.

The appellant cross-appealed the damages and costs awards.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no errors in concluding the lengthy rental costs were unforeseeable, rescission was not pleaded, and costs were appropriately capped at 15 percent under the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and commenced an action against the driver and owner identified in the police accident report.

After the limitation period expired, the appellant learned the vehicle was uninsured and sought leave to amend the statement of claim to add his own insurer for uninsured motorist coverage.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding a lack of due diligence.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellant acted with reasonable diligence by relying on the insurance information in the police report until receiving actual notice to the contrary.