Tamara Broder

The appellants sought to adjourn their appeal of an associate judge's ruling on undertakings and refusals due to the unavailability of their lead counsel.

The appellants also sought to file transcripts of the multi-day hearing before the associate judge, which the respondent opposed.

The court granted the adjournment, setting a peremptory date for the appeal.

However, the court denied the request to file transcripts, noting they were unnecessary as they contained only legal arguments and the appellants had not referenced them in their factum.

The court also directed the parties to settle the underlying order with the associate judge.

The applicant sought payment for five chiropractic treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the insurer failed to comply with the 10-day notice requirement under section 38(8) of the Schedule for three of the plans, ordering the insurer to pay for treatment incurred during the non-compliance periods.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal regarding the substantive entitlement to the treatment plans, finding the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The objective medical evidence and independent assessments indicated the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and would not benefit from further facility-based treatment.

The applicant was struck by a public transit bus and sought attendant care and non-earner benefits.

The insurer denied the claims and raised preliminary issues regarding the applicant's failure to comply with requests for medical information under s. 33 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant completely failed to provide the requested medical documentation for over three years without a reasonable explanation.

The applicant's reliance on a law firm policy not to produce records older than one year pre-accident was rejected as an unreasonable excuse.

Consequently, the insurer was found not liable to pay the disputed benefits, and the appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was injured when a Toronto Transit Commission bus suddenly stopped, causing her to fall and fracture her right arm.

She applied for a non-earner benefit and an attendant care benefit, which the respondent denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as medical and surveillance evidence showed she could still engage in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal also denied the attendant care benefit because the applicant failed to submit an Assessment of Attendant Care Needs form prior to the claimed period and did not prove she required assistance beyond the date the form was eventually submitted.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant's counsel brought a motion on the eve of the hearing to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and requested an adjournment.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought a dismissal of the application, arguing prejudice and abuse of process.

The Tribunal found that it did not have rules requiring permission for counsel to remove themselves and accepted counsel's assertion of a breakdown in the relationship.

The Tribunal denied the respondent's request to dismiss the application, finding it would be procedurally unfair to the newly self-represented applicant.

The hearing was adjourned to allow the applicant to confirm her intentions regarding representation.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The parties settled the substantive issues immediately prior to the scheduled arbitration, leaving only the issue of expenses in dispute.

The applicant sought $12,532.83 in costs, while the insurer sought $17,220.24.

The arbitrator found that because the matter did not proceed to a hearing and both parties achieved a mixed result, neither party was entitled to its expenses.

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

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to Rule 37.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement and presented no evidence, the application was dismissed.

The insurer was awarded expenses in the amount of $3,741.42.

The appellants appealed an interlocutory order dismissing their motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement.

The plaintiff's former lawyer had accepted a $12,500 settlement offer from the TTC, but the plaintiff later claimed she did not give instructions to settle and sued her lawyer.

The motion judge found no settlement existed and refused to enforce it.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the lawyer had ostensible authority to bind his client, the acceptance was clear and unambiguous, and there was no basis for the TTC to know of any lack of instructions.

The settlement was enforced.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle collision involving a public transit bus, the jury found that although liability was admitted, the plaintiff failed to prove the accident caused compensable injury.

After a subsequent hearing addressing responsibility for trial costs, the estate and former counsel were ordered to pay certain costs to the transit authority.

The present endorsement addressed a further request by the estate trustee, in her personal capacity, seeking substantial costs for the costs hearing itself.

The court held that proceedings determining costs rarely justify an additional award of costs absent unusual circumstances and found the amount claimed disproportionate to a one‑day hearing.

The court concluded that the ordinary principle that costs proceedings do not generate further costs should apply.

Following a jury trial concerning a motor vehicle collision in which liability had been admitted, the jury found that the accident did not cause or contribute to the injuries alleged by the deceased plaintiff.

The defendant transit authority sought costs.

The court held that the successful defendant was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity scale but reduced the fees claimed after finding aspects of the bill excessive.

The court further held that the estate trustee should not be personally liable for costs where she merely continued litigation commenced by the deceased.

However, due to counsel’s fundamental misunderstandings in presenting the damages case, the court ordered that a portion of the costs be paid personally by plaintiff’s counsel under Rule 57.07.

The applicant failed to maintain contact with her counsel and did not attend the arbitration pre-hearing.

Her counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record, and the insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application for arbitration with costs.

The arbitrator granted both motions, removing counsel from the record and dismissing the application as frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith due to the applicant's failure to participate.

The applicant was ordered to pay $500 in costs to the insurer.

Following a trial where the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) was found not liable for a streetcar accident involving a four-year-old child, the TTC sought its costs of the proceeding.

The court declined to award costs to the TTC, noting that the child could not be at fault and that the TTC, as a public service, should bear the costs of defending such claims where the injured party is not at fault.

The court also declined to award costs for the TTC's counterclaim against the child's parents, resulting in no order as to costs for any party.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario after a dispute with the insurer over accident benefits.

The applicant failed to communicate with his counsel or attend the pre-hearing and hearing.

At the hearing, the applicant's counsel successfully moved to withdraw from the record.

The insurer moved to dismiss the application due to the applicant's failure to participate.

The arbitrator dismissed the application in its entirety and awarded the insurer $495 in expenses for counsel fees, rescinding an initial award for the arbitration filing fee.

Following dismissal of a motion to enforce an alleged settlement of a personal injury action, the court addressed the quantum of costs payable personally by the plaintiff’s former lawyer whose misleading communications had precipitated the motion.

The court reviewed the principles governing costs under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including fairness, reasonableness, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of unsuccessful parties.

Although the successful parties sought higher amounts on a substantial indemnity scale, the court examined comparable settlement‑enforcement motions and determined that the reasonable range was significantly lower.

Costs were fixed at $11,127.20 payable to the plaintiff and $7,781.66 payable to the TTC.

A motion was brought to strike a third party claim against the Toronto Transit Commission’s insurer arising from a pedestrian injury caused by an uninsured vehicle while the pedestrian attempted to board a stopped streetcar.

The moving party argued there was no privity of contract with the injured person or the defendant and that declaratory relief was inappropriate.

The court held that potential liability could arise under the statutory accident benefits priority scheme in s. 268(2) of the Insurance Act if the streetcar was "involved in the incident." Accepting the pleaded facts as true, the court found the allegations could support such involvement and therefore disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The third party claim was permitted to proceed and declaratory relief within the action was found appropriate to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 20.04 and 49.09 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking judgment enforcing a purported settlement allegedly accepted by the plaintiff’s solicitor.

The court found that the solicitor falsely represented that he had instructions to accept the settlement offer and acted without authority from the plaintiff.

The evidence established that the plaintiff had never agreed to the settlement and had not provided instructions directly or indirectly to accept it.

The court further held that it was not reasonable for the defendants to assume that the solicitor had authority to settle without explicit client instructions in light of prior communications.

The motion to enforce the settlement was dismissed, and the plaintiff’s former solicitor was ordered personally to pay the costs of the motion on a substantial indemnity scale under Rule 57.07.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision awarding the respondent income replacement and housekeeping benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the arbitrator failed to apply the proper causation test and failed to provide adequate reasons, particularly regarding the respondent's pre-existing depression and medical history.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator correctly applied the material contribution test and properly treated the respondent as a 'thin skull' rather than a 'crumbling skull' case.

The Delegate held that the arbitrator's factual findings were supported by the evidence and her reasons were adequate.