Leanne Catherine Storms

The appellant appealed a judgment interpreting the will of Eleanor Martha Devonport.

The application judge found that a specific bequest of the Hopewell Avenue property to the testator's predeceased son passed to the son's wife pursuant to section 31 of the Succession Law Reform Act (the anti-lapse provision), rather than lapsing into the residue of the estate.

The appellant argued the will showed a contrary intention and that the solicitor's evidence should have been admitted.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the application judge's interpretation of the anti-lapse provision or the will's terms.

The court also upheld the occupation rent requirement, finding it was properly raised and calculated.

This application concerned the interpretation of Eleanor Martha Devonport's will regarding a residential property gifted to her son, Peter, who predeceased her.

The applicant, Peter's spouse and estate trustee, argued the property passed to her via the anti-lapse provision (s. 31) of the Succession Law Reform Act.

The respondent, Eleanor's surviving child and estate trustee, contended Eleanor's will expressed a contrary intention, causing the gift to lapse into the residue of the estate.

The court found no contrary intention in the will to oust the anti-lapse provision, ruling the property passed to the applicant.

The court also dismissed the respondent's unjust enrichment claim and ordered the respondent to account for dealings with the property and pay occupation rent to the applicant.

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

The respondent insurer determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied further treatment plans, non-earner benefits, and attendant care benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove he sustained psychological injuries that would remove him from the MIG.

As the applicant had exhausted the $3,500 MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for non-earner and attendant care benefits, finding insufficient evidence of a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants, representing regional airline pilots, sued Air Canada pilots for unlawful act conspiracy, alleging they unlawfully prevented the implementation of a merged seniority list.

The trial judge dismissed the claims, finding that some defendants committed no unlawful acts due to their right to dissent, and that the unlawful acts of others did not cause the loss of a chance to implement the list because Air Canada would never have agreed to it.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that the rank-and-file members did not breach their union contracts and that the chance of implementing the merged list was de minimis.

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

At arbitration, the Arbitrator found the appellant entitled to post-104 week income replacement benefits, less 80% of his net self-employment income as set out in his personal tax returns.

Both parties appealed.

The Director's Delegate allowed both appeals, finding that the Arbitrator erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons.

Specifically, the Arbitrator failed to make an explicit finding on whether the appellant was employed during the relevant period and failed to address the insurer's arguments regarding the proper methodology for calculating self-employment income.

The decision was rescinded and remitted for a new hearing.

In a dispute over statutory accident benefits, the appellant appealed an arbitration order regarding the calculation of income replacement benefits.

The respondent filed a cross-appeal after seeking clarification of the arbitrator's order.

The appellant argued the cross-appeal was out of time.

The Director's Delegate held that the cross-appeal was filed within 30 days of the clarified order and was therefore timely.

In the alternative, the Delegate found reasonable grounds to extend the time for filing the cross-appeal, noting the short delay, reasonable explanation, and lack of prejudice to the appellant.

The appellants challenged the dismissal of their negligence claim arising from alleged tingle voltage in a barn said to have caused dairy herd production losses and the loss of a farm operation.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in invoking the material contribution test, because the governing causation analysis was the but for test as explained in Clements, but found the error non-dispositive since causation failed even under the more lenient framework.

Deferring to the trial judge's detailed factual findings and assessment of competing expert evidence, the court upheld the conclusion that tingle voltage was not proved to be a contributing cause of the production issues on a balance of probabilities.

The appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, with costs to the respondent.

The applicant, who was confined to a wheelchair following a motor vehicle accident, sought interim attendant care, caregiving, and housekeeping benefits after the insurer terminated them at the 104-week mark.

The insurer relied on a surveillance video and medical assessments suggesting the applicant was malingering.

The arbitrator found the surveillance video to be of questionable probative value and tainted the insurer's medical evidence.

Applying the prima facie and urgency/necessity tests, the arbitrator granted the interim benefits, noting the extraordinary hardship on the applicant's family who were providing his care.