Serena Gohal

The plaintiff brought a motion to restore a motor vehicle accident lawsuit to the trial list, while the defendants moved to dismiss the action for delay.

The court found that although there was a significant delay of nearly ten years since the statement of claim was issued, the active delay was primarily caused by the defendants and court administration issues rather than the plaintiff.

Additionally, the court determined that the defendants failed to demonstrate any non-compensable prejudice that would prevent a fair trial.

Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to restore the action and dismissed the defendants' motion to dismiss for delay.

The appellant was assaulted by her husband while driving, causing her to lose control of the vehicle and strike her head.

She applied for statutory accident benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the incident was not an 'accident' because the assault was an intervening act and the dominant feature of the injuries.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the adjudicator erred in law by failing to consider the incident in two phases: the assault itself, and the subsequent loss of control of the vehicle.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the issue of whether the injuries from the loss of control constituted an accident was remitted for a hearing.