Vic Purewal

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the in-person assessments of the respondent's experts and the clinical notes of the applicant's family physician over the virtual assessment of the applicant's expert.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological injury, and dismissed the application.

The defendant Unifund Assurance Company brought two motions: one for summary judgment under Rule 20 based on a deemed admission, and another under Rule 21 to strike the plaintiff's personal injury claim on grounds of issue estoppel.

The Rule 20 motion argued that the plaintiff's failure to respond to a request to admit, concerning his presence in the vehicle at the time of the accident, constituted a deemed admission.

The Rule 21 motion asserted that the issue of the plaintiff's occupancy had been finally determined against him in a prior FSCO arbitration, thus precluding relitigation.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the deemed admission was of limited value due to drafting inaccuracies and that, despite the preconditions for issue estoppel being met, applying the doctrine would be unfair given the significant differences in purpose, process, and stakes between the FSCO arbitration and the tort claim.

The plaintiff sought to add Pave-Tar Construction Ltd. as a defendant after the expiry of the putative limitation period, arguing that the claim was not discovered until the City of Toronto disclosed Pave-Tar's winter maintenance contract.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate reasonable diligence in discovering the identity and role of Pave-Tar within the two-year limitation period, as no evidence was provided to explain the delay in inquiry.

The appellant appealed a Master's decision dismissing her motion to set aside a Registrar's order that had dismissed her personal injury action as abandoned.

The Divisional Court found that the Master made palpable and overriding errors by concluding that the appellant's counsel's affidavit had no evidentiary value and by finding prejudice to the respondent based on the expiration of the limitation period.

The court allowed the appeal, quashed the Master's decision, and ordered the Registrar's dismissal order set aside.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits, alleging he was injured when a parked van he was occupying was rear-ended by another vehicle.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not involved in an accident.

At a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator found the applicant and his witnesses lacked credibility due to significant inconsistencies in their evidence.

Relying on the testimony of an independent witness and a police officer, the arbitrator concluded that the van was unoccupied at the time of the collision.

Consequently, the applicant was not involved in an accident as defined in section 2(1) of the Schedule.