Richard Lebkowski

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for various treatment plans following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent insurer denied the plans, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal partially allowed the application, finding that the applicant continued to suffer from accident-related psychological impairments, including driving anxiety, and physical pain.

The Tribunal granted full funding for chiropractic treatment and partial funding for psychological therapy and a driver's reintegration program, reducing the amounts to comply with the Superintendent's Guideline.

Claims for physiotherapy, a chronic pain assessment, and the balance of the psychological treatment plans were dismissed.

The applicant's representative brought a motion to be removed as representative of record because the applicant could not be located.

The arbitrator granted the motion to withdraw.

As the applicant did not attend the hearing and no evidence was submitted in support of her claim for a non-earner benefit, the application for arbitration was dismissed with $500 in costs payable to the insurer.

Following an eight‑day civil trial in which the defendants were wholly successful, the court addressed costs.

The plaintiffs argued that costs should not follow the event because the litigation was pursued in the public interest and they were allegedly impecunious.

The court considered Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including proportionality, the circumstances of the dispute, the parties’ reasonable expectations, and the existence of settlement offers.

While acknowledging potential financial hardship and the plaintiffs’ stated public interest motivations, the court found that the defendants were entitled to recover costs.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded in a reduced amount, payable jointly by the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

Prisoner passengers injured in a rear-end collision while being transported in a police prisoner transport vehicle sought punitive damages against the police service and related defendants after settling compensatory claims with other parties.

The plaintiffs alleged that the design of the transport vehicle—lacking seat belts, padding, visibility, and communication systems—demonstrated reckless disregard for prisoner safety.

The defendants argued the design reflected industry standards and balanced passenger safety with the need to prevent prisoner-on-prisoner and prisoner-on-officer violence.

The court held that punitive damages require malicious, high‑handed, or reprehensible conduct warranting denunciation.

Because the vehicle design reflected a rational policing approach supported by industry practice and reasonable debate over competing safety concerns, the conduct did not meet the threshold for punitive damages.

The insurer brought a motion for the production of financial records from the applicant's related businesses to determine her entitlement to income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

During the hearing, the parties agreed on the specific documents to be produced, leaving only the issue of expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had previously offered to produce the relevant documents and that the insurer's motion was unnecessary.

The insurer was ordered to pay the applicant's expenses, assessed at $250.