Shane Henry

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to approve a settlement for a minor injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The minor sustained minimal injuries with no ongoing complaints or treatment.

The court approved the $10,000 all-inclusive settlement, finding it reasonable and in the minor's best interests given the significant risk of no recovery at trial.

The court also approved the contingency fee and ordered the net settlement funds to be paid to the minor's mother to hold until the minor turns 18.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident but did not notify her insurer of her intention to apply for statutory accident benefits until 15 months later.

The insurer denied the claim based on non-compliance with the seven-day notice period under s. 32(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay under s. 34, noting her significant pre- and post-accident medical conditions, cognitive struggles, and genuine ignorance of her entitlement to benefits.

The Tribunal concluded that the hardship to the applicant outweighed any prejudice to the insurer, allowing the application to proceed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders and entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRB).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, as he sustained only moderate, rather than marked, impairments in activities of daily living and adaptation.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychiatric assessment, noting the applicant maintained useful functioning such as driving, going to the gym, and caring for his parents.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRB, finding insufficient objective medical evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as an IT technician.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The appellant was a passenger in a vehicle at a fast-food drive-through when a cup of hot coffee spilled on her, causing severe burns.

The insurer denied her claim for statutory accident benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the SABS.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial, finding that an improperly secured lid was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

On appeal, the Divisional Court reversed the Tribunal's decision, holding that an inadvertent spill of hot coffee purchased from a drive-through is a normal incident of the risk created by the use of a vehicle, and the appellant's inability to take evasive action due to being seated in the vehicle was a direct cause of her impairments.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found she was not involved in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by holding a written hearing and erred in law and fact by distinguishing her case from Dittmann regarding an improperly secured coffee lid.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the parties consented to a written hearing, and no error of law or fact as the improperly secured lid constituted an intervening act breaking the chain of causation.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after hot coffee spilled on her at a McDonald's drive-thru while she was seated in her vehicle.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the purpose test and 'but for' causation test were met, the improperly secured lid on the coffee cup constituted an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The Tribunal concluded the use or operation of the vehicle was not the dominant feature of the incident, and therefore it was not an accident.

The application was dismissed.

The insurer applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for repayment of income replacement benefits paid to the respondent, alleging wilful misrepresentation.

The insurer initially sought $5,187.00 but increased its claim to $10,786.97 in its submissions.

The Tribunal found that the insurer was only entitled to $4,788.00, as it had only provided proper notice for that amount under section 52 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal rejected the insurer's allegations of wilful misrepresentation, finding that the overpayment was likely due to the insurer's own error in issuing a lump sum payment five years post-accident despite having the respondent's tax returns.

The Tribunal awarded $500.00 in costs to the respondent due to the insurer's unreasonable conduct in ambushing the respondent with new claims and making unfounded allegations of fraud.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic and physiotherapy services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered predominantly minor injuries, consisting of sprains and strains, and rejected the applicant's claim of chronic pain syndrome.

As the applicant failed to demonstrate that her impairments warranted removal from the MIG and the monetary limits had been exhausted, the claims for medical benefits, interest, and a punitive award were dismissed.

The moving defendants brought a motion for an order compelling the production of additional documentation and information from the plaintiffs' employers (Air Canada and FedEx) and Great West Life, pertaining to the plaintiff Kirk Del Pino's alleged injuries and pecuniary losses following a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs opposed the production of certain documents, arguing they were irrelevant or already addressed by an arbitration decision.

The court applied Rule 30.10, emphasizing a broad interpretation of relevance in discovery and the unfairness of requiring the moving party to proceed to trial without the requested documents.

The court ordered the production of most disputed documents, including details from Air Canada's grievance file, FedEx's policy on truck drivers holding second full-time jobs, and the Great West Life disability claim file.

Costs were awarded to the moving defendants.

The applicant's counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, as the applicant had left the country without providing contact information.

The arbitrator granted the motion.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the arbitration proceeding due to the applicant's non-attendance.

The arbitrator adjourned the motion to dismiss to allow the insurer to serve its motion record on the applicant at his last known address.