Oneal Banerjee

The moving parties, including Chartwell Retirement Residences, Sienna Senior Living Inc., Extendicare Inc., and Schlegel Villages Inc., brought four motions for leave to appeal the decision of Morgan J. dated March 7, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal without costs.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiff, a suspended and terminated coach member of Athletics Ontario (AO), sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain AO from interfering with his attendance or coaching at sports events not hosted by AO, even if sanctioned by AO.

The court applied the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions from RJR-MacDonald.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish a serious issue to be tried regarding AO's alleged unlawful conduct (threats to third parties, calls to police), as his evidence was inadmissible hearsay under Rule 39.01(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Consequently, the motion for an interlocutory injunction was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The parties disputed the weekly quantum, with the applicant claiming $989.08 based on employment income, and the respondent calculating $80.77 based on self-employment income.

The Tribunal found that the applicant reported her income to the CRA as self-employment income, and therefore her IRBs must be calculated on that basis.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $80.77 per week plus interest, but denied the applicant's request for a special award, finding the respondent's withholding of payment was not unreasonable given the inaccurate account of self-employment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a psychological assessment, which the insurer denied on the basis that the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) applied.

At arbitration, the Arbitrator found the MIG unconstitutional under s. 15 of the Charter without making any factual findings about the applicant's condition or whether the MIG actually precluded his benefits.

The Director's Delegate overturned this decision, holding that constitutional issues cannot be decided in a factual vacuum.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applicant's judicial review, affirming that the Arbitrator erred by deciding the Charter issue without a proper factual foundation.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, which the insurer denied.

The central issue was whether the applicant's injuries met the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the applicant suffered a marked psychological impairment and significant physical impairments, rendering her catastrophically impaired.

The arbitrator awarded various medical benefits, attendant care benefits, housekeeping and home maintenance benefits, and the costs of several assessments.

Claims for a driver desensitization assessment, a worksite assessment, and a special award were dismissed.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, housekeeping, and attendant care benefits.

The insurer terminated these benefits based on insurer examinations.

The arbitrator found that the applicant remained substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment, noting the insurer failed to properly adjust the file when advised the applicant had not returned to work.

The arbitrator awarded income replacement benefits, partial housekeeping and attendant care benefits, and a $5,000 special award against the insurer for unreasonably withholding benefits.

Following earlier motion decisions involving crossclaims between defendants in an action arising from an oil spill at a residence, the successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $25,000.

The responding defendant argued for a significantly lower award.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding no misconduct warranting a punitive award and emphasizing the governing principle of reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful party.

Although the moving party obtained partial summary judgment and a declaration regarding future defence costs, the success was only partial.

The court fixed costs at $12,000 inclusive.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for property damage caused by an oil spill.

The defendant Bluewave brought a motion for partial summary judgment against the co-defendant Daniel Charles Transport for the costs of defending the action, arguing that Daniel Charles Transport breached a contractual obligation to obtain liability insurance naming Bluewave as an additional insured.

Daniel Charles Transport brought a motion to withdraw admissions and a cross-motion to dismiss Bluewave's crossclaim based on a Pierringer Agreement it had reached with the plaintiffs.

The court dismissed Daniel Charles Transport's motions, finding no justification to withdraw the admissions and that the Pierringer Agreement did not extinguish Bluewave's crossclaim for several liability.

The court granted Bluewave's motion for summary judgment, finding that Daniel Charles Transport breached its covenant to insure and that the pleaded allegations triggered a duty to defend.

Applying the principle of equitable contribution, the court ordered Daniel Charles Transport to pay 50% of Bluewave's past and future defence costs.