Peter Hagen

The applicant sought to resign as trustee of a family trust.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a cross-application to appoint a new independent trustee, arguing that the settlor's children, who intended to appoint themselves as trustees pursuant to the trust agreement, had abused their discretion as directors of the trust's holding company.

The court found no evidence of abuse of discretion that would justify interfering under s. 5(1) of the Trustee Act, and held that the executors could appoint the next trustees pursuant to the trust agreement.

The appellant appealed an order striking the jury and the dismissal of her action.

The court held that appellate review of an order striking a jury is very limited and found that the trial judge considered the relevant factors, applied correct principles, and exercised discretion properly.

The court also upheld the rejection of the medical expert evidence, accepting that the trial judge was entitled to find the opinions were based on incomplete information from the plaintiff and were not presented objectively.

The additional grounds of appeal lacked merit.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant was severely injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for three years.

After 156 weeks, the insurer terminated benefits on the basis that she was no longer continuously prevented from engaging in any occupation or employment for which she was reasonably suited.

The arbitrator found that while the appellant could not return to her pre-accident work as a self-employed computer consultant, she was capable of working in less complex roles within the computer industry.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding no error in the conclusion that suitable, flexible employment was available to the appellant.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits from the insurer.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant was capable of working and that his disability was caused by his bankruptcy rather than the accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome caused by the accident, which continuously prevented him from engaging in any occupation for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The arbitrator also found that the parties had previously settled the quantum of benefits at $600 per week.

The insurer's claim for repayment was dismissed.

A special award of $600 was granted because the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by failing to provide proper notice of its reasons for termination.

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

The insurer terminated her weekly income benefits after 156 weeks, arguing she no longer met the eligibility test under section 12(5)(b) of the Schedule.

The applicant applied for arbitration, claiming her injuries continuously prevented her from engaging in suitable employment.

The arbitrator dismissed the application, finding that while the applicant suffered residual disabilities from a head injury, she had made a remarkable recovery and was capable of returning to work in the computer field, for which she was reasonably suited by education, training, and experience.