William Harding

The plaintiffs brought a motion for production of documents from Aviva Insurance Company, the statutory third-party insurer of one of the defendants, and sought answers to refused discovery questions.

The core issue was the disclosure of records related to Aviva's investigation of a motor vehicle accident and its off-coverage position based on alleged policy violations.

The court reviewed the documents in camera, considering claims of litigation and solicitor-client privilege.

The motion was granted, ordering the production of documents as detailed in an attached schedule, and granting leave for further discovery on the disclosed information and material facts from privileged documents.

The applicant, who suffered catastrophic injuries in a 2011 motor vehicle accident, sought attendant care benefits of $2,202.51 per month and non-earner benefits of $320 per week.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant continues to require some attendant care for basic supervisory care, coordination, and hygiene, his needs were reasonably assessed at $445.50 per month.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding that the applicant had made significant progress, including living independently, marrying, and purchasing a home, and therefore did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

A claim for a special award was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue attendant care benefits.

The applicant was involved in a severe motor vehicle accident resulting in catastrophic impairment, including a brain injury.

He sought attendant care benefits and housekeeping and home maintenance benefits, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant was physically capable of performing tasks, his brain injury caused significant emotional and motivational limitations.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was entitled to attendant care benefits for comfort, safety, and security, calculated at 240 minutes per week, as well as housekeeping and home maintenance benefits of $100 per week, plus interest on overdue amounts.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle while riding his bicycle and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment based on mental and behavioural disorders, specifically in the sphere of Adaptation.

The Tribunal weighed competing expert evidence, noting the applicant's upward trajectory in employment and poor validity testing results.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's occupational therapy assessment, finding the simulated work tasks unrealistic compared to his actual sustained employment.

Preferring the respondent's psychiatric evidence, the Tribunal found the applicant's impairments did not rise to the level of a marked impairment and dismissed the application.

Appeal of summary judgment dismissal in a negligence action arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff's estate and family sued social hosts for damages, alleging the hosts owed a duty of care when the intoxicated guest drove home and subsequently drove his children and their babysitter, resulting in a fatal collision.

The motion judge dismissed the claims, finding no duty of care existed and alternatively that any duty ended when the guest arrived home safely.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding genuine issues of fact regarding foreseeability and proximity that required trial, and rejecting the proposition that a social host's duty of care automatically expires upon an intoxicated guest's safe arrival home.