Shenthuran Subramaniam

The respondent insurer brought a preliminary issue motion arguing that the applicant was barred from claiming a physiatry assessment because the expense would be incurred more than 260 weeks after the motor vehicle accident, pursuant to s. 20 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant had appealed the denial within the two-year limitation period under s. 56.

The Tribunal held that interpreting s. 20 as an absolute bar would lead to absurd consequences, effectively reducing the appeal period by the time required to process a claim.

The matter was ordered to proceed to a hearing on the substantive issues.

Following a successful arbitration where the applicant's claims for caregiver benefits were dismissed, the insurer sought its arbitration expenses.

The arbitrator reviewed the criteria under Rule 75.2 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, noting the insurer's complete success, the applicant's failure to beat the insurer's settlement offer, and the applicant's improper conduct in resisting production of records.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer $18,000.00 in expenses, inclusive of legal fees calculated at Legal Aid rates and disbursements including court reporter fees.

The applicant sought weekly caregiver benefits following a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated benefits in September 2012.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, noting numerous inconsistencies regarding her injuries, substance abuse, and the fact that her children had been removed from her care by Family and Children's Services in 2011 for reasons unrelated to the accident.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the insurer's assessors and concluded the applicant was not the primary caregiver at the time of the accident, did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and did not incur the claimed caregiving expenses.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits and a medical benefit for chiropractic treatment, following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims, finding the applicant's evidence and that of his medical experts lacked credibility.

Surveillance evidence contradicted the applicant's claims regarding his inability to drive and work.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment and that the disputed treatment plan was not reasonable or necessary.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses.

Multiple motions arising from five civil proceedings related to the Algo Centre Mall collapse sought transfer of a certified class action to Sault Ste.

Marie, trial together or common case management of related actions, and appointment of a single motions judge.

The court held that opt-out plaintiffs in separate proceedings lacked standing under rule 13.1.02 to seek transfer of the class action, and in any event failed to show that Sault Ste.

Marie was a significantly better venue than Toronto in the interest of justice.

The court further declined relief under s. 107(1) of the Courts of Justice Act because any transfer necessary to enable common case management or trial together would impose substantial cost and inefficiency, particularly given the existing class action case management structure.

Appointment of a rule 37.15 judge was also refused.