Rachel Hepburn Craig

The plaintiff, a political refugee, sued the federal government for damages arising from a mistaken 1994 arrest based on a cancelled deportation order, which led to a loss of social benefits for many years.

The defendant brought a motion to strike the claim as statute-barred.

The court found that the plaintiff discovered his claim in 2012 when an immigration lawyer investigated the matter and the government acknowledged the mistake.

Because the plaintiff did not commence his action until 2017, well beyond the two-year limitation period, the court granted the motion and dismissed the action as statute-barred.

The applicant, a failed refugee claimant from Sri Lanka, sought an emergency interim injunction in the Superior Court of Justice to stay his removal after the Federal Court dismissed a similar application earlier the same day.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, holding that it should defer to the Federal Court, which has primary jurisdiction over immigration matters and provides an effective remedy.

The court also found that the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm to meet the test for an injunction.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The appellant abandoned his claim for Wallace damages against one of the respondents.

The Court of Appeal found that the facts pleaded did not support a claim for punitive damages against that respondent.

The Court also refused to grant leave to amend the statement of claim to plead negligent investigation, as there was no evidence the appellant was dismissed due to such an investigation.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the lower court.

The defendants brought a cross-motion for security for costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the lower court's decision, and that the proposed appeal did not raise matters of general importance due to the exceptional factual circumstances of the case.

The court also dismissed the defendants' motion for security for costs, as there was no good reason to believe the plaintiff's action was frivolous and vexatious.

Given the mixed results, no costs were awarded.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2004 and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, housekeeping, and rehabilitation benefits for retraining as a massage therapist.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's impairments fell within the Pre-Approved Framework (PAF) Guidelines and that her retraining was not reasonable and necessary.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had significant pre-existing chronic pain from prior accidents and that her decision to retrain was for personal insight rather than vocational rehabilitation.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant did not meet the burden of proving entitlement to further benefits beyond the PAF maximums.

All claims were dismissed.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

After his representative withdrew due to a breakdown in communication, the applicant failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

As no evidence or submissions were presented on his behalf, the arbitrator found the application had been abandoned.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses of the arbitration fixed at $2,000.63.