Wendy Breuer

The applicant sought payment for a treatment plan totaling $7,370.81 for catastrophic assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had approved portions of the plan but denied costs for clinical file reviews, transportation, and travel time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the denied portions were reasonable and necessary, noting that file reviews are subsumed within the $2,000 assessment limit under s. 25(5) of the Schedule.

The claims for the treatment plan, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, medication expenses, and a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal relied on the respondent's section 44 assessments and surveillance evidence, which showed the applicant engaging in various physical activities, over the applicant's medical evidence.

The claims for medication expenses, interest, and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident during the course of his employment and initially received WSIB benefits.

He subsequently sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer, claiming he had elected to withdraw his WSIB claim to pursue a tort action.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide persuasive evidence that he had properly withdrawn his WSIB claim or obtained the required consent from the WSIB.

Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate a bona fide intention to pursue a tort claim, as his Statement of Claim was filed after the limitation period and not served.

Consequently, the applicant was barred under section 61 of the Schedule from pursuing accident benefits, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant, a truck driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving his employer's truck.

He applied for statutory accident benefits but was denied by the insurer on the basis that he was in the course of his employment and therefore entitled to Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) benefits.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was working at the time of the accident and was entitled to WSIB benefits.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant's election to pursue a tort claim was made primarily for the purpose of claiming accident benefits, as he did not have a bona fide intention to commence a tort action at the time of his application.

Consequently, the applicant was statute-barred under s. 61 of the Schedule from proceeding with his application for accident benefits.

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

The respondent insurer denied certain benefits and argued at a preliminary issue hearing that the applicant was barred from claiming accident benefits under s. 61 of the Schedule because the accident occurred in the course of his employment, entitling him to WSIB benefits.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to meet its burden of proving the accident occurred in the course of employment, as the applicant's sworn testimony indicated he was returning from a social visit.

The Tribunal held the applicant was not statute-barred and could proceed with his application.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits from the insurer.

After the applicant's legal representatives lost contact with him and were removed from the record, the applicant failed to attend a pre-hearing resumption and a subsequent preliminary issue hearing.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator granted the motion and dismissed the application for arbitration pursuant to Rule 68 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

Following scheduling of a summary judgment motion over approximately $10,000 to $13,000 in income replacement benefits, the plaintiff withdrew the motion after producing information and the insurer agreed to pay the benefits sought, subject to a possible dispute over retroactive quantum.

Both sides sought costs.

The court held that both parties were responsible for disproportionate and inefficient motion practice, with the plaintiff slow to disclose relevant corporate structure information and the insurer demanding excessive production inconsistent with proportionality.

Emphasizing the required culture shift toward cooperative, proportionate litigation conduct, the court declined to award costs to either side.

In an accident benefits dispute, the plaintiff sought summary judgment for $13,000 in income replacement benefits after mediation had failed on that claim, while disputes over attendant care and medical rehabilitation benefits remained ongoing.

The insurer maintained that entitlement turned on whether the plaintiff was an employee or self-employed and sought additional employment-related information.

The court scheduled the summary judgment motion but emphasized proportionality, noting that the proposed process was not affordable relative to the amount in issue.

Counsel were directed to arrange a focused meeting with the insurer's financial advisor and the employer's president to resolve the factual dispute efficiently, with the court remaining available to assist summarily on consent.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident and applied for arbitration.

The applicant's legal representatives brought a motion to withdraw as counsel of record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, as the applicant had moved to Vietnam and ceased communicating with them.

The insurer brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application for arbitration due to the applicant's failure to attend pre-hearings.

The arbitrator granted the representatives' motion to withdraw and dismissed the application for arbitration as frivolous, vexatious, or commenced in bad faith due to abandonment.

The insurer was awarded $750 in expenses.

The moving party sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing her motion for summary judgment.

The plaintiff was injured in an altercation with another guest at a house party hosted by the moving party.

The motion judge found that whether the moving party's role engendered a duty of care under the principles of social host liability was a genuine issue for trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, agreeing that there was some evidence that could support a finding of responsibility and that the threshold test for leave to appeal was not met.