Rita Gratsias

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit (IRB) and funding for a rheumatological assessment, following a motor vehicle accident while riding a TTC bus.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries were minor and that an intervening workplace accident was the true cause of her ongoing impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a substantial or complete inability to perform her pre-accident employment, noting she had returned to physical labour before the workplace accident occurred.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not establish removal from the Minor Injury Guideline and dismissed the claim for the assessment due to the failure to produce the treatment plan.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a former nursing student, sued the defendants (individual employees and two educational institutions) for various torts after being wrongfully accused of academic fraud.

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the amended statement of claim.

The court struck the claims for personal liability against individual defendants, breach of fiduciary duty, and defamation, but granted leave to the plaintiff to amend the claim within 45 days.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient particulars for personal liability of employees, failed to establish the elements for a fiduciary duty, and did not plead that the defamatory words were spoken or written by the university defendants.

Costs were agreed upon by the parties.

The plaintiff, a former nursing student, sued the defendants for damages after they falsely accused her of academic fraud.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the statement of claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, related to an academic matter, and was an abuse of process.

The court found that while the university has broad discretion in academic matters, this does not extend to the negligent performance of an internal investigation or intentional torts.

The court struck the claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, bad faith, and breach of privacy due to pleading deficiencies, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to add claims on behalf of their minor children under the Family Law Act and to add their own insurer as a defendant under the OPCF 44 Family Protection Endorsement due to potential underinsurance of the defendants.

The insurer opposed the amendment, arguing that the claim was barred by the 12‑month limitation period under the endorsement because the plaintiffs ought to have known earlier that their damages exceeded the available $200,000 coverage.

The court considered the limitation trigger articulated by the Court of Appeal, requiring a body of evidence giving a reasonable chance of persuading a judge that damages exceed the policy limits.

On the record before the court, the medical evidence and damages assessment were insufficiently developed to determine that the limitation period had expired.

Leave to amend the claim and add the insurer was granted, with the insurer permitted to plead a limitation defence.

The applicant, injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought production of the insurer's adjusting records, including reserves, to support a claim for a special award under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act.

The insurer claimed litigation privilege over the records and opposed disclosure of reserve information.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to produce its complete adjusting notes, including reserves, up to the date the applicant filed for mediation, finding that litigation privilege did not apply before that date and that the reserve information was potentially relevant to the special award claim.

The applicants sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

At a pre-hearing discussion, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to produce its adjusting file up to the date of mediation and to confirm within 60 days whether it intended to rely on any surveillance or investigation evidence.

The insurer objected, arguing that under Rule 40 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, it was only required to produce such evidence 30 days before the hearing.

The arbitrator clarified the order, holding that Rule 40 does not create a new class of privilege and that the insurer must produce surveillance evidence created prior to the mediation date, and must confirm its intention to rely on any evidence within 60 days.