Peter Cimino

The court dismissed the defendants’ motion to strike or dismiss the plaintiff’s claim to set aside a settlement of statutory accident benefits on the basis of unconscionability.

The court found that its jurisdiction was not ousted by section 280 of the Insurance Act, as the claim was not about entitlement to benefits but about the unconscionability of the settlement itself.

The court also held that the issue of repayment of settlement funds should not be determined on a motion to strike, and that the plaintiff’s pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The claim was not scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claim for removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the LAT erred in law by disregarding his subjective evidence of psychological impairment, providing inadequate reasons, and demonstrating bias against subjective pain complaints.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LAT adequately explained its weighing of the evidence and that no error of law or procedural fairness violation occurred.

This case conference addressed a dispute arising from a settled personal injury claim where the plaintiff refused to sign a release containing a "no admission of liability" clause.

The settlement agreement was silent on the specific terms of the release.

The court found that, in the context of an insurance claim where liability was denied throughout, a "no admission of liability" clause is objectively implied by a settlement and is standard in the industry.

The plaintiff was therefore required to sign the release with the impugned clause.

No costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her post-104-week income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the LAT adjudicator erred in law by failing to reference a Functional Capacity Evaluation, ignoring subjective evidence, demonstrating bias, and misapplying the test for suitable alternative employment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the adjudicator's failure to mention specific evidence did not constitute an error of law, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the adjudicator's factual findings supported the conclusion regardless of the specific employment factors considered.

Three appeals were heard together to determine whether the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the two-year limitation period for filing appeals set out in s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The Divisional Court held that s. 7 does grant the LAT jurisdiction to extend the s. 56 limitation period, as the time limit is fixed 'under an Act' (the Insurance Act).

The Court dismissed the insurers' appeals challenging the LAT's jurisdiction and its exercise of discretion to grant extensions, finding no errors of law.

In the third appeal, where the adjudicator had found no jurisdiction, the Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the LAT to consider the extension request.

Three appeals were scheduled to be heard regarding whether the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the two-year limitation period for statutory accident benefits applications.

The LAT had previously made conflicting decisions on this issue and indicated it did not intend to appear.

The Divisional Court adjourned the appeals and ordered the LAT to intervene and file materials to assist the court in determining the jurisdictional issue.