Lena Vartanian

The defendant brought a threshold motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, arguing her injuries did not meet the "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function" threshold.

Despite a jury finding the plaintiff 60% liable and the defendant 40% liable, and awarding $40,000 in non-pecuniary damages, the court granted the defendant's motion.

The court found the plaintiff's expert medical evidence unreliable due to incomplete and inaccurate information provided by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's own credibility was significantly undermined by inconsistencies regarding her injuries, activities, and financial situation.

Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish that her injuries met the statutory threshold, and her claim for general damages was dismissed as statute-barred.

The defendant brought a motion for a mistrial following the plaintiff's opening address to the jury.

The court found that the plaintiff's opening address contained inflammatory remarks, appeals to emotion, personal opinions, misstatements of fact, and improper references to the defendant's eye condition and the defendant's insurer.

The court determined that the cumulative effect of these improprieties created a real danger of prejudice and a miscarriage of justice, which could not be cured by jury instructions without negatively impacting the jury's perception of counsel and the plaintiff.

Consequently, the motion for a mistrial was granted.

The plaintiff sought to put several questions regarding pecuniary damages (past loss of income, future loss of income, future cost of care, housekeeping/home maintenance, and loss of competitive advantage) to the jury.

The court ruled that there was insufficient "reasonable evidence" to support these questions, as the plaintiff's evidence was too speculative, lacked specificity, and did not adequately account for contingencies or causation, especially given subsequent accidents.

Consequently, the judge dismissed the plaintiff's request to put these questions to the jury.

The plaintiff, Heart Zap Services Inc., sought summary judgment against its insurer, Lloyd's Underwriters, for $37,120.50 under an all-risks commercial insurance policy.

The claim arose from a fraudulent order for defibrillator units.

Lloyd's denied coverage, arguing the loss did not occur at an insured location, was not a covered type of loss (voluntary surrender to fraudster), and was excluded as a conditional sale.

The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding the loss occurred at the insured location, constituted a direct physical loss as there was no valid contract of sale due to fraud, and the conditional sale exclusion did not apply as title was not intended to be withheld.

The court declined to award punitive damages, finding the insurer's denial, while incorrect, did not meet the high threshold for malicious or high-handed conduct.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination in housing based on age and receipt of public assistance.

A summary hearing was scheduled to determine if the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

The applicant engaged in extensive correspondence disputing the proper respondents and requested adjournments, which were denied.

After being explicitly warned that failure to attend could result in dismissal, the applicant failed to call into the scheduled telephone hearing.

The Tribunal dismissed the application as an abuse of process and declined to declare the applicant a vexatious litigant without proper notice.