Paul Belanger

The applicant sought payment of $11,780.00 for the balance of catastrophic impairment assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had partially approved the assessments up to the $2,000.00 limit per assessment under s. 25(5)(a) of the Schedule but denied additional fees for document review and reports.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving that the additional costs were reasonable and necessary.

The application for the balance of the assessment costs, an award, and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The self-represented applicant repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to attend the final days of the hearing without sufficient medical justification.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence.

The Tribunal found the claim for non-earner benefits was statute-barred as it was filed beyond the two-year limitation period.

The applicant failed to provide evidence to support entitlement to attendant care benefits or the reasonableness and necessity of proposed occupational therapy.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought an order from the Licence Appeal Tribunal declaring her entitlement to income replacement benefits, despite the respondent insurer having already reinstated the benefits and paid all arrears prior to the hearing.

The applicant argued the order was necessary to secure procedural protections under s. 281 of the Insurance Act.

The Tribunal found it retained jurisdiction because a dispute existed when the application was filed.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request for declaratory relief, concluding that issuing an order where the dispute had already been resolved by concession would be a misapplication of resources.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, housekeeping and home maintenance benefits, and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims for housekeeping benefits because the applicant had not sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed as the applicant's pre-existing psychological conditions and post-accident activities demonstrated she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal granted the claim for a chronic pain program in part, finding it reasonable and necessary, but dismissed the remaining claims for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment as duplicative.

The claim for a special award under O. Reg 664 was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's order requiring him to pay the respondent's arbitration expenses of $6,558.11 following the dismissal of his claims for accident benefits.

The appellant argued the arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because she was not the hearing arbitrator and erred in her application of the Expense Regulation.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator had jurisdiction under the Dispute Resolution Practice Code and correctly applied the results-based approach mandated by the Expense Regulation.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's order requiring her to pay the insurer's expenses of the arbitration in the amount of $17,755.18.

The appellant argued that the Arbitrator lacked jurisdiction because she was not the hearing arbitrator and that she erred in her application of the Expense Regulation.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the Arbitrator had jurisdiction under the Dispute Resolution Practice Code to decide the issue of expenses and correctly applied the prescribed criteria, which focus on the degree of success.

The insurer was entirely successful at the arbitration, and the Arbitrator reasonably reduced the claimed expenses to a proportionate amount.

Following an arbitration where the insurer was entirely successful in defending against the applicant's claims for statutory accident benefits, the insurer sought its expenses.

The arbitrator considered the criteria under the Insurance Act and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, finding no reason to depart from the general rule that expenses follow the event.

However, the arbitrator found the insurer's claimed time of 132.40 hours excessive for a two-day hearing and reduced the fees, awarding the insurer expenses in the amount of $6,558.11.

Following an arbitration where the insurer successfully defended against the applicant's claims for accident benefits, the insurer sought $26,996.97 in expenses.

The arbitrator found no reason to depart from the general rule that expenses follow the event.

However, the arbitrator determined that the 227.60 hours claimed by the insurer's counsel was excessive for a four-day hearing.

The arbitrator reduced the preparation time to a more reasonable 116.15 hours, awarding the insurer $17,755.18 in total expenses.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, having previously been involved in three other accidents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her onus of proving a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting a lack of evidence regarding her pre-accident activities and credibility issues with her self-reporting.

The Tribunal placed limited weight on the psychological assessments because the assessors lacked critical information about the applicant's prior accidents and academic history.

The application for benefits, interest, and costs was dismissed.

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

The insurer denied the benefits.

At the arbitration hearing, the applicant's credibility was found to be questionable due to inconsistencies between his testimony and the medical documentation regarding his pre-accident and post-accident activity levels.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of the accident.

The claims for medical benefits and cost of examinations were also dismissed as the applicant did not establish that they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was involved in motor vehicle accidents in May 2012 and October 2012, and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer, including non-earner benefits, medical benefits, and the cost of examinations.

The insurer denied the claims.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit because she failed to submit a Disability Certificate for the May 2012 accident, as required by section 36(3) of the Schedule.

Furthermore, the arbitrator concluded that the applicant did not prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to attend school, work part-time, and engage in other normal activities post-accident.

The claims for medical benefits and cost of examinations were also dismissed because the applicant failed to establish that they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant filed a stand-alone application seeking costs for a prior, closed application that had settled before the hearing.

The respondent opposed and sought its own costs, arguing the applicant's new application was frivolous and vexatious.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 19 to award costs for conduct in a prior proceeding.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's request for costs, as the applicant's conduct did not meet the high threshold for bad faith given the novelty of the Tribunal's processes.

In a class proceeding arising from a major propane facility explosion, the plaintiffs sought to amend their statement of claim and certify claims against additional defendants associated with the ownership and leasing of the facility property.

The court considered whether the proposed amended pleading satisfied the s. 5(1)(a) requirement of the Class Proceedings Act by disclosing a reasonable cause of action.

Claims in strict liability and nuisance against the property-owning defendants were struck because the pleadings failed to meet the legal prerequisites and improperly characterized the alleged nuisance.

Negligence claims under the Occupiers’ Liability Act were also dismissed because the alleged damages occurred off the premises and the statute only applies to persons entering the premises.

However, the court held that the plaintiffs had properly pleaded a viable common law negligence claim based on the defendants’ alleged rights of control and failure to intervene in unsafe operations.

Certification against the remaining defendants proceeded solely on the basis of the common law negligence cause of action.

In a certified class proceeding arising from explosions at a propane facility, class counsel moved for an order restraining an insurer and its counsel from communicating directly with class members during the court‑approved opt‑out period.

The insurer’s counsel had sent letters stating the insurer would opt insured class members out of the class action and pursue their claims through a subrogated action.

The court held the communications were misleading, interfered with the solicitor‑client relationship between class counsel and class members, and violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The court reaffirmed that insureds retain control of litigation until fully indemnified for both insured and uninsured losses.

An order was made prohibiting the insurer and its counsel from communicating with affected class members without court approval or consent of class counsel during the opt‑out period.

The plaintiffs sought certification of a proposed class action arising from explosions at a propane facility in Toronto that allegedly caused personal injury, property damage, and evacuation of nearby residents.

The court considered the certification requirements under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992.

It held that the pleadings against certain landlord defendants failed to disclose a viable cause of action because the allegations relying on agency, single‑group enterprise, and alter‑ego theories lacked material facts capable of piercing the corporate veil.

Those pleadings were struck with leave to amend and the certification motion against those defendants was adjourned.

The proceeding was otherwise certified as a class action against the remaining defendants, with common issues approved and representative plaintiffs appointed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

Her representative lost contact with her and was granted a motion to be removed from the record.

The applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claims for income replacement benefits due to a lack of evidence.

The insurer's claim for repayment of income replacement benefits paid pending a Designated Assessment Centre report was granted, as the report concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The applicant was ordered to repay $3,853.08 and pay the insurer's arbitration expenses of $2,947.01.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding that a homeowners policy exclusion for motorized land vehicles did not apply.

The insured accidentally started a fire while removing parts from an inoperable motor vehicle to use in a replica car he was building.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the motion judge that the exclusion did not apply because the assertions of negligence were not related to the ownership or use of the vehicles as motor vehicles.