Russell Tilden

The applicant sought a Non-Earner Benefit and payment for various treatment and assessment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's ongoing pain was caused by pre-existing degenerative disc disease rather than the accident.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, finding that MRI results and independent medical examinations confirmed the symptoms were degenerative.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, including claims for an award and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), physiotherapy, psychological treatments, and medication expenses.

The Tribunal found the applicant was disentitled to pre-104 week IRBs due to non-compliance with section 33 of the Schedule for failing to provide self-employment financial records, and did not meet the test for post-104 week IRBs.

The Tribunal approved the physiotherapy treatment plans as reasonable and necessary, but dismissed the claims for the unapproved portions of the psychological treatment plans and the medication expenses.

The claim for an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed as the insurer's denials were reasonably informed by independent medical examinations.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal more than two years after the denial.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial letters were clear and unequivocal, satisfying the requirements to trigger the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, finding no bona fide intention to appeal, prejudice to the respondent, and weak merits of the claim.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant sought payment for two treatment plans for chiropractic services totaling over $7,000.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence or specify her injuries to warrant removal from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the treatment plans and interest were denied.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action on behalf of himself and two minor children against the lawyers and insurance company that represented the opposing party in previous litigation.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the claim for lacking a cause of action.

The plaintiff agreed to dismiss the claim prior to the hearing.

The court dismissed the entire action, including the claims purportedly brought on behalf of the minors without a litigation guardian, on consent and without costs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including costs for physiotherapy, clinical notes and records, and a Disability Certificate.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement on a balance of probabilities, the adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet this onus.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, with no benefits, awards, or interest payable.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of a third party claim arising from a tug-of-war injury.

The plaintiff was severely injured during a recreational tug-of-war at a campground when his arm became caught in a loop in the rope, resulting in amputation of his forearm.

The appellants sought contribution and indemnity from the third parties who participated in the game.

The motion judge dismissed the third party claim, finding that the third parties owed no duty of care to the plaintiff.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, holding that the third parties did not fall within any of the circumstances that would impose a positive duty to act, and that the injury was not a reasonably foreseeable result of participation in a recreational tug-of-war game.

Following the successful summary judgment motions by six third parties dismissing the third party claims against them, the court determined the costs to be awarded.

The defendants argued that costs for a prior summary judgment motion and an appeal should not be included.

The court found that the preparation for the prior motion and attendance at the appeal were incidental to the third party claims and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, rejecting a request for substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants in a personal injury action arising from a recreational tug-of-war game brought a third-party claim for contribution and indemnity against several other participants in the game.

Six of the third parties moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against them.

The court applied the Anns/Cooper test and found that the participants did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff, as they did not organize the event, create the risk, or have a special relationship requiring them to take positive action to prevent injury.

The court granted the motions and dismissed the third-party claims.

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

The respondent denied several medical benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries, which included a compression fracture at L1 and a psychological adjustment disorder, were not predominantly minor and therefore did not fall within the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the disputed medical benefits for chiropractic services, a psychological assessment, and a MIG discharge report, along with interest on overdue payments.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' personal injury action on summary judgment, the court determined the costs payable.

The defendants sought costs from the plaintiffs and argued the plaintiffs should also be liable for the costs of the third parties, whom the defendants had joined.

The court applied the general rule that an unsuccessful plaintiff is not responsible for the costs of third parties they did not sue, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from this rule.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $44,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the defendants were ordered to pay the full costs claimed by the various third parties, totaling over $133,000.

During a civil jury trial, the plaintiffs sought leave to argue that the jury could draw an adverse inference from a defendant's failure to testify.

The court held that the defendant's non-attendance had been adequately explained by his incarceration in another province and that inviting such an inference would be misleading.

The plaintiffs were permitted to comment on the absence of supporting evidence from the defendant on specific factual issues, but not to suggest that his evidence would have been detrimental to the defence.

The adverse inference issue was not left with the jury.

On a trial motion, the defendants objected to evidence that one defendant apologized after an explosion causing burn injuries.

The court held that the Apology Act, 2009 did not apply retroactively to an apology allegedly made in 2006, before the statute came into force.

Applying the presumption against retroactive legislation, the court found the Act was directed to the making of apologies, not merely the future admissibility ruling at trial, and that retroactive application would alter the legal effect of a past event and potentially remove substantive insurance-related defences.

The apology evidence was therefore admissible.