Ryan O'Connor

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

Prior to the hearing, the applicant withdrew all substantive issues, leaving only a preliminary issue regarding whether he was barred from benefits under section 31(1)(a)(i) of the Schedule for operating an uninsured vehicle.

The Tribunal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the preliminary issue as a stand-alone matter because the underlying benefits were no longer in dispute.

The respondent's request for costs was dismissed, as the applicant's conduct in withdrawing the issues and arguing the jurisdictional point was not unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The defendant hospital brought a motion to strike the plaintiffs' action under Rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs sought damages for breach of contract, constructive dismissal, negligence, misfeasance in public office, defamation, and human rights violations arising from the suspension and revocation of the physician's hospital privileges following non-compliance with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.

The court found that most claims fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board under the Public Hospitals Act and were struck.

The court allowed only the claim for lost wages from October 1, 2021 to the date privileges were suspended, and granted leave to amend regarding defamation and misfeasance in public office claims.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a road rage incident where he pursued the assailant's vehicle on foot and was injured upon making contact with it.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the Greenhalgh purpose and causation test, finding that while the vehicle was being used in a normal fashion at the exact moment of injury, the incident failed all three parts of the causation test.

The applicant's decision to pursue the vehicle broke the chain of causation, and the dominant feature of the incident was the individuals, not the vehicle.

The Tribunal concluded the incident was not an accident.

The respondent's request for costs was denied as there was no evidence the applicant acted unreasonably or in bad faith.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer suspended benefits after the applicant failed to provide requested post-accident bank records.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's request under s. 33 of the Schedule was reasonable, given surveillance evidence showing the applicant at her employer's premises and the fact that her employer was a company owned by her husband.

Because the applicant failed to comply with the reasonable request, the insurer was not liable to pay the benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant's appeal was dismissed after being deemed abandoned, as she filed only a Notice of Appeal and requests for time extensions.

The respondent sought $4,992.40 in legal expenses for the appeal proceeding.

The Director's Delegate found the respondent's claimed expenses to be exaggerated and not commensurate with the effort required to obtain a dismissal, noting the appellant's arguments were largely generic.

The Director's Delegate ordered the appellant to pay $750.00 in legal expenses to the respondent.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision allowing her to withdraw her application for arbitration and awarding expenses to the respondent.

The appellant failed to file written appeal submissions by the original deadline and a subsequent extended deadline.

After receiving no response to a final notice warning that the appeal would be dismissed as abandoned, the Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal.