20 total
Case conference endorsement scheduling a Rule 21 motion, a Mareva injunction motion, and addressing procedural matters.
A case conference was held to address procedural issues following previous endorsements.
The court directed the parties to draft separate orders for six prior motions.
The court also scheduled a Rule 21 motion brought by the defendant Shapiro regarding the plaintiff's Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim, and scheduled the plaintiff's renewed motion for a Mareva injunction.
Finally, the court set a timetable for written submissions regarding the Atkinson defendants' request to pay outstanding costs orders from funds held in trust.
Fund awarded $7,500 in appeal expenses after successfully appealing attendant care benefits decision.
The Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund was successful in its appeal regarding the payment of attendant care benefits and the deduction of collateral benefits, and successfully resisted the respondent's cross-appeal and variation application.
Both parties sought their appeal expenses.
The Director's Delegate found that the Fund was entitled to its expenses based on its degree of success and the lack of novel issues raised by the respondent.
The Fund claimed $16,623 in fees and disbursements, but the Director's Delegate awarded a global amount of $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, noting the multiple issues involved.
Uninsured off-road motorcycle operated on private property requires motor vehicle liability policy including statutory accident benefits.
The respondent was catastrophically injured while riding an uninsured off-road motorcycle on a private motocross track.
He applied to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund for statutory accident benefits.
The Fund denied the claim, arguing that under section 226(2) of the Insurance Act, the required insurance policy did not include accident benefits because the motorcycle did not need to be registered under the Highway Traffic Act.
The Director's Delegate dismissed the Fund's appeal, finding that the Off-Road Vehicles Act required the motorcycle to be insured under a motor vehicle liability policy, which by definition includes statutory accident benefits.
Appeal from preliminary order refusing to remove respondent's counsel for alleged conflict of interest rejected.
The appellant sought to appeal a preliminary arbitration order that refused to remove the respondent's counsel for an alleged conflict of interest.
The appellant argued that counsel representing the respondent in both the first-party accident benefits arbitration and a related third-party tort action possessed prohibited information.
The Director's Delegate rejected the appeal, finding that the Divisional Court had previously ruled there is no requirement for an insurer to retain separate counsel in such circumstances.
The Delegate concluded that hearing the appeal would cause delay and extra expense without streamlining the process.
Costs denied to successful responding party on motion because the motion raised a novel issue.
The applicant was injured in a hit-and-run motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.
At the arbitration hearing, the applicant brought a motion to remove the Fund's counsel due to an alleged conflict of interest, which was dismissed.
In this subsequent decision on expenses, the Fund sought its costs for the motion.
The arbitrator found that the motion raised a novel issue regarding the Fund's practice of using the same counsel for tort and accident benefit claims without a 'Chinese Wall'.
Consequently, the arbitrator ordered that each party bear its own expenses.
Motion to remove insurer's counsel for acting in both tort and accident benefits claims dismissed.
The applicant brought a motion to remove the respondent's counsel and his law firm as solicitors of record due to an alleged conflict of interest.
The applicant argued that the same counsel could not represent the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund in both the tort action and the statutory accident benefits claim.
The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding no conflict of interest, as the counsel's only client was the Fund and there was no legal requirement for an insurer to retain separate solicitors for tort and accident benefits claims.
Uninsured motorcyclist injured on private track entitled to statutory accident benefits from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.
The applicant was rendered a paraplegic in a single-vehicle motorcycle accident on a private track.
The motorcycle was uninsured.
The Fund denied the claim, arguing that subsection 226(2) of the Insurance Act precluded payment because the vehicle was not required to be registered under the Highway Traffic Act.
The Arbitrator held that subsection 226(2) applies to contracts of insurance and does not bar a non-contractual statutory claim against the Fund under section 268(2).
The Fund was ordered to pay the statutory accident benefits to which the applicant is entitled.
Discoverability rule applies to the 12-month limitation period under the former Professional Engineers Act.
The plaintiff commenced an action against a paving company for breach of contract regarding defective pavement.
Years later, the plaintiff discovered a concealed engineering report revealing that the original design specifications provided by an engineering firm were deficient.
The plaintiff successfully moved to add the engineering firm as a defendant.
The engineering firm appealed, arguing the claim was statute-barred.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the discoverability rule applies to the 12-month limitation period under s. 46(1) of the former Professional Engineers Act, meaning the limitation period did not begin until the plaintiff discovered the report.
Accident benefits claims dismissed due to applicant's refusal to participate and present evidence.
The Applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
Despite initiating the arbitration, the Applicant refused to participate in the hearing process or present any evidence.
The arbitrator dismissed all claims, noting that the Applicant bears the burden of proof and failed to establish the merits of his claims on a balance of probabilities.
No costs were awarded.
Judicial review dismissed; Fund not required to pay accident benefits where claimant's application lacked nexus.
The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a Director's Delegate decision which upheld an arbitrator's finding that the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund was not required to pay statutory accident benefits.
The arbitrator found no nexus between the claimant and the Fund, concluding the claimant's choice to apply to the Fund was arbitrary.
Applying a reasonableness standard of review, the Divisional Court upheld the decision, noting the claimant provided no rational basis for applying to the Fund.
The application for judicial review was dismissed.
Fund not required to pay accident benefits pending priority dispute due to lack of sufficient nexus.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a rental car.
He submitted an Application for Accident Benefits to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.
The Fund argued it was not an insurer under section 268 of the Insurance Act and section 2 of O. Reg. 283/95 because there was no sufficient nexus between it and the applicant.
The arbitrator found that the applicant's decision to send the application to the Fund was arbitrary, given his limited efforts to determine the insurer of the rental car.
The arbitrator concluded that the Fund was not required to respond to the application as it was not the first insurer to receive a completed application.
Applicant unlawfully in Canada is not 'ordinarily resident' and cannot claim accident benefits from MVAC.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Ontario and applied for statutory accident benefits from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (MVAC).
At the time of the accident, the applicant's refugee claim had been denied and she was subject to a removal order, making her presence in Canada unlawful.
The arbitrator held that a person unlawfully in Canada cannot be considered 'ordinarily resident' in Ontario.
As the applicant's domicile state of Kazakhstan did not offer reciprocal coverage, she was precluded from claiming benefits under section 25(1) of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act.
Appeal dismissed; applicant's arbitrary claim to the Fund lacked sufficient nexus to trigger payment obligation.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund, despite a police report indicating the vehicle he was in was insured by Wawanesa.
The Fund refused to pay, arguing the application was incomplete without the police report and there was an insufficient nexus.
The arbitrator found the application was complete but agreed there was an insufficient nexus because the applicant's choice to apply to the Fund was arbitrary, as he took no steps to determine if other insurance was available.
The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeals by the applicant and Wawanesa, confirming that an applicant must have some basis for believing coverage is unavailable elsewhere before applying to the Fund as the insurer of last resort.
Non-resident's claim for accident benefits dismissed because his home jurisdiction lacks a substantially similar fund.
The applicant, a resident of Texas, was injured in a hit-and-run motor vehicle accident while visiting Ontario.
He applied for statutory accident benefits from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.
The Fund refused payment on the basis that the applicant was precluded from proceeding under subsections 25(1) and (2) of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act, as Texas does not have a substantially similar fund.
The arbitrator found that the applicant was ordinarily resident in Texas and that Texas does not have a similar fund.
The application for arbitration was dismissed.
Arbitrator orders OPP to produce accident investigation records for use in accident benefits dispute.
The insurer brought a motion for the production of Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) records relating to the applicant's ATV accident.
The applicant consented to the release, but the OPP refused to produce the records without a court order, citing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
The arbitrator held that under section 22(1) of the Insurance Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, an arbitrator has the jurisdiction to order third-party production.
Finding the records relevant and necessary, the arbitrator ordered the OPP to produce the records subject to agreed redactions.
Property intended for occupancy qualifies as existing home, but insurer need not fund unrelated remedial repairs.
The applicant, who was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits for home modifications under section 15 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The parties disputed whether a property owned by the applicant's family, which they were allegedly planning to move into before the accident, qualified as his 'existing home.' The parties also disputed whether the insurer was required to pay for remedial work, such as mould removal and structural repairs, necessary before the home modifications could proceed.
The arbitrator found that the property was the applicant's 'existing home' because the Schedule allows flexibility in choosing a home and the applicant had a reasonable connection and settled intention to live there.
However, the arbitrator ruled that the insurer was not required to pay for the remedial work, as it was not required to reduce or eliminate the effects of any disability resulting from the accident.
Arbitrator lacks jurisdiction to add an insurer as a third party to a statutory accident benefits arbitration over the applicant's objection.
The insurer brought a motion to add the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (MVAC) as a co-respondent or third party to an arbitration proceeding, arguing MVAC was responsible for any special award arising from its prior handling of the file.
The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding no statutory jurisdiction under the Insurance Act to add an insurer to a proceeding over the applicant's objection.
The arbitrator also dismissed the insurer's motion to strike the applicant's claim for a special award, instead amending the issue to reflect the insurer's potential liability for both its own actions and those of MVAC.
The insurer was ordered to pay the legal expenses of both MVAC and the applicant.
Application for statutory accident benefits dismissed due to applicant's failure to attend the arbitration hearing.
The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The insurer denied entitlement, and the parties proceeded to arbitration.
The applicant's representative was removed from the record with her consent prior to the hearing.
The applicant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving proper notice.
As no evidence was tendered to support the application, the arbitrator dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $1,977.33.
Spouse of an unnamed insured not involved in the accident is not an 'insured person' for benefits.
The applicant's husband was struck by a cement truck and sustained physical injuries.
The applicant, who was not involved in the accident, claimed statutory accident benefits for psychological injury from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.
The Fund denied the claim on the basis that she was not an 'insured person' under the Schedule.
The arbitrator held that the definition of 'insured person' for those not involved in an accident is clear and unambiguous, requiring the person to be a named insured, specified driver, or their spouse/dependant.
As the applicant was the spouse of an unnamed insured, she did not meet the definition and her claim was dismissed.
Solicitor and client costs awarded to plaintiff following dismissal of defendants' motion for leave to appeal.
The plaintiff sought costs on a solicitor and client basis following the dismissal of the defendants' motion for leave to appeal a summary judgment decision.
Applying the test from Smyth v. Waterfall, the court found the defendants failed to show that bringing the motion for leave to appeal was reasonable.
The court awarded the plaintiff costs on a solicitor and client basis, fixed at $4,742.00.
