Terry R. Shillington

The plaintiff sought to certify a class proceeding against the City of Ottawa arising from a deadly bus accident at Westboro Station.

The proposed action was structured to plead systemic negligence in transit design and operation while avoiding claims against the city as the owner of the vehicle and employer of the driver.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the proposed class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, as it ignored readily available compensation under the motor vehicle insurance regime and numerous individual actions had already been commenced.

The plaintiff, a 16-year-old driver, was injured in a single-vehicle accident after failing to stop at a stop sign at a rural intersection and crashing into a concrete abutment.

The plaintiff had consumed alcohol prior to the crash.

The plaintiff sued the municipality, alleging the intersection was in a state of non-repair because it lacked warning signs for a change in road alignment (an 'offset' intersection).

The court found that the intersection posed a hidden hazard and required a warning sign in addition to the stop sign.

The court apportioned liability 50% to the municipality for failure to warn and 50% to the plaintiff for failing to stop and driving after consuming alcohol.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident after losing control of her car on an icy patch of a municipal road.

She sued the municipality for negligence, alleging a failure to adequately salt the road.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the municipality had met the standard of care by promptly salting the road, though light blowing snow delayed the salt's effectiveness.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's findings of fact were well-supported by the evidence and that the municipality had taken reasonable steps to address the winter road conditions.

The plaintiff was injured when a park bench she sat on collapsed during a New Year's Eve event.

Shortly before, a town councillor had witnessed a vandal break the bench, but did not report it.

Someone subsequently propped the broken bench back up, making it appear normal.

The trial judge found the municipality liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for failing to have on-site security and for the councillor's failure to report the damage.

The Court of Appeal allowed the municipality's appeal, holding that the trial judge failed to apply the correct standard of care.

The court found that someone propping up a broken bench to make it appear normal was not a sufficiently probable contingency that the municipality was required to foresee.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits.

He was also convicted of assault arising from an altercation that occurred immediately prior to the accident.

The insurer terminated benefits and sought repayment, arguing the applicant was excluded under the criminal offence provisions of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the assault continued at the time of the accident, triggering the exclusion.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's arguments of waiver and estoppel, ordering the applicant to repay $6,487.19 in benefits to the insurer.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently convicted of assault for events occurring around the time of the accident.

The insurer terminated his income replacement benefits and sought repayment, arguing that subsections 30(4) and (5) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule precluded him from receiving benefits due to his criminal conviction.

The arbitrator held that the exclusion in subsection 30(4) only applies to benefits payable during the period up to the time the charge is finally disposed of.

Since the applicant was seeking benefits for a period after his conviction, he was not precluded from receiving them.

The applicant was awarded the expenses of the preliminary issue hearing.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision awarding the insured weekly income benefits beyond the 156-week mark and a $20,000 special award.

The insured had suffered physical and psychological injuries in a severe motor vehicle accident and was unable to continue working.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's finding that the insured was continuously prevented from engaging in suitable employment, noting the insurer failed to provide evidence of alternative suitable jobs while the insured adduced substantial medical evidence of disability.

The special award was also confirmed because the insurer unreasonably terminated benefits and disregarded the recommendations of its own medical experts.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated her weekly caregiver benefits after 104 weeks, asserting she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant argued she suffered a substantial inability to engage in her pre-accident caregiving activities for her adult son, who had a severe brain injury.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's physical limitations, including osteoarthritis and restricted mobility, prevented her from meaningfully engaging in her pre-accident caregiving activities.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay ongoing weekly caregiver benefits and interest, but denied the claim for a special award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated caregiver benefits and scheduled a medical examination.

The applicant attended but refused to proceed unless she could tape record the examination, alleging the doctor had been rude previously.

The doctor refused to proceed with the tape recorder.

On a preliminary motion, the arbitrator applied the principles from Bellamy v. Johnson and held that the applicant's refusal to submit to the examination without a tape recorder was unreasonable, as she failed to demonstrate a bona fide concern or propose safeguards to ensure the recording's reliability.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant sought ongoing weekly income benefits and a special award.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment and was continuously prevented from engaging in any suitable employment due to chronic pain and severe depression.

The arbitrator also ordered the insurer to pay a $20,000 special award because it unreasonably withheld benefits by ignoring the recommendations of its own medical experts.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

The applicant sought arbitration, arguing that the benefits were terminated prematurely and that she met the post-156 week eligibility test.

The arbitrator held that the 156-week period in section 12(5)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule refers to 156 weeks of disability, meaning the benefits were not terminated prematurely.

Furthermore, the arbitrator found that the applicant was capable of returning to full-time employment with restrictions and had not made a bona fide effort to find suitable employment.

The application for ongoing weekly income benefits was dismissed.