Yasna Beheshti

The defendant Kolesnik sought leave to commence a third-party claim against Toronto Hydro-Electric System Limited, which argued the limitation period had expired.

The court examined when Kolesnik ought reasonably to have discovered the claim, applying the test from Morrison v. Barzo.

The court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the discovery date of the claim against Toronto Hydro, granting leave for the third-party claim to proceed, with Toronto Hydro permitted to plead its limitation period defence.

Costs were awarded to Kolesnik.

The respondent insurer sought its legal expenses after successfully resisting the insured's appeal regarding the calculation of income replacement benefits.

The Director's Delegate declined to award expenses, finding that although the appeal was dismissed, it raised a novel issue and was warranted given errors in the arbitrator's reasoning.

The parties were ordered to bear their own legal expenses of the appeal.

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

At the scheduled arbitration hearing, the Applicant failed to attend.

The Applicant's counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship, which was granted.

The Insurer subsequently moved to dismiss the application.

The Arbitrator proceeded in the Applicant's absence under Rule 37.9 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code and dismissed the application, as the Applicant failed to present any evidence to prove entitlement to the claimed benefits.

The Insurer was awarded $1,500 in expenses.