Tally Vanounou

The Ontario Trial Lawyers Association (OTLA) brought a motion to intervene in an appeal concerning the enforceability of a settlement agreement where the plaintiff died before executing the release and structured settlement documents.

The respondent Estate supported the intervention, while the appellant insurer opposed it.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the appeal raised broader public law issues and policy concerns regarding personal injury settlements and the Insurance Act, and that OTLA would provide a distinct and useful perspective without causing significant prejudice to the parties.

The applicant was involved in two motor vehicle accidents and reached a global settlement with the respondent insurer at mediation.

Ten days later, before signing the settlement disclosure notice (SDN) and release, the applicant was killed by her mother.

The insurer argued the settlement was unenforceable because the applicant did not personally sign the SDN and release, and because the common law slayer rule prevented the funds from flowing to the mother.

The Tribunal found that a binding settlement was reached at mediation and that the applicant's estate could execute the SDN and release on her behalf.

The Tribunal also found that the slayer rule did not invalidate the settlement, as the family committed to ensuring the funds would flow only to the applicant's sister.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order for a site visit and permission for his expert to inspect, test, and potentially destructively test one of the defendant's windows.

This was necessary for an occupier's liability action where the original shattered window was no longer available, and its nature and condition were central to the litigation.

The defendant did not provide responding materials.

The court granted the motion, finding the inspection necessary for a proper determination of the issue and that any potential prejudice to the defendant (e.g., needing to replace a destroyed window) could be compensated later.

The appellant was injured in an all-terrain vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal adjudicator found the vehicle was not an automobile and denied benefits.

The Executive Chair reconsidered the decision, cancelled it, and ordered a rehearing.

Both parties appealed the reconsideration decision to the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed both appeals, finding the Executive Chair's decision to order a rehearing was reasonable given the complexity of the case and the need to resolve factual disputes regarding the vehicle's status.

The court also held that an appeal does not stay a request for reconsideration under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that his ATV collision was not an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Executive Chair found that the Tribunal made significant errors in applying the Adams test to determine whether the ATV was an 'automobile'.

Specifically, the Tribunal failed to adequately assess voluminous evidence regarding the ownership of the ATV and the occupier of the property at the time of the collision, which was relevant to whether the ATV required insurance under the Off-Road Vehicles Act.

The reconsideration was granted and the matter was ordered to be reheard.

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

In a prior decision, the applicant achieved mixed success, recovering approximately $7,000 in medical benefits but failing on claims for income replacement and other expenses.

The arbitrator considered the criteria under section 12 of Ontario Regulation 664 to determine entitlement to arbitration expenses.

Finding that both parties had prolonged the proceedings at different stages and that success was divided, the arbitrator ordered that each party bear its own expenses.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), medical and rehabilitation benefits, and the cost of assessments.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding the Applicant's evidence regarding his pre-accident employment to be unreliable and contradictory.

The claims for medication and assessment costs were also dismissed as they were either unrelated to the accident or not reasonable and necessary.

However, the arbitrator ordered the Insurer to pay $7,028.58 for physical therapy services because the Insurer failed to provide timely notice of its refusal to pay for the treatment plans as required by section 38 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the applicant's application for arbitration of statutory accident benefits, arguing that the applicant caused undue delay and that the proceeding was frivolous or vexatious.

The insurer initially sought to enforce a settlement but abandoned that position at the hearing.

The arbitrator found that the insurer failed to prove the applicant's conduct merited dismissal.

The arbitrator ordered the hearing to proceed on peremptory dates and deferred the issues of costs and waiver of interest to the hearing arbitrator.