Lisa Ann Armstrong

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 sought repayment of $7,120 for overpaid Income Replacement Benefits (IRB).

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and that he failed to prove chronic pain or psychological injuries warranting removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay the $7,120 in IRBs, finding he wilfully misrepresented his work status by continuing to collect benefits after returning to work.

The application for additional treatment plans and a special award was dismissed.

Following a jurisdiction motion where the defendant insurers successfully argued that the court lacked jurisdiction over the proposed class actions, the insurers sought costs of approximately $620,000.

The court found this request preposterous and excessive, fixing costs payable by the plaintiffs to the 13 non-settling insurers at $28,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The costs payable by the government regulator to the plaintiffs were settled at $12,500.

The plaintiffs filed proposed class actions against 15 auto insurers and the provincial regulator, FSCO, alleging improper deduction of HST from statutory accident benefits.

The defendant insurers brought motions to dismiss the actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes.

The court agreed, dismissing the actions against the insurers and refusing to approve two early settlements, as the claims fell squarely within the LAT's exclusive jurisdiction under s. 280 of the Insurance Act.

However, the court found it had jurisdiction to hear the claims against FSCO for regulatory negligence, as those allegations did not directly concern benefit entitlements or amounts.

A pedestrian struck by a vehicle in 2008 received statutory accident benefits for attendant care and housekeeping until the insurer terminated them in 2010.

In 2015, after receiving a catastrophic impairment designation, the claimant reapplied for benefits.

The Tribunal and Divisional Court found the claim was out of time based on a two-year limitation period.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the limitation period was subject to the rule of discoverability and was not a hard limitation period.

The court held that applying a hard limitation period would be contrary to the consumer protection purposes of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and would produce an absurd result by barring claims before the claimant was eligible to make them.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired in a motor vehicle accident, sought attendant care benefits of $6,000 per month.

The respondent conceded entitlement but disputed the quantum and whether past services provided by the applicant's sister were 'incurred' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant required 24-hour basic supervisory care due to unpredictable cognitive and visual episodes, entitling her to $6,000 per month for most of the claimed period.

The Tribunal also found the sister provided services in a professional capacity, satisfying the incurred test.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's delay was reasonable given accounting and documentation issues.

The moving party sought either to have the Court of Appeal reconstitute itself as a panel of the Divisional Court to hear his appeal immediately after the appellant's appeal, or to be granted leave to intervene as a party in the appellant's appeal.

Both the moving party and the appellant were injured in motor vehicle accidents and had their statutory accident benefits claims denied.

The moving party argued that both appeals raised the same or similar issues regarding the application of the two-year limitation period for disputing the refusal of statutory accident benefits.

The court dismissed both requests, finding that allowing the moving party to bypass the Divisional Court would be improper absent compelling reasons, and that efficiency alone was insufficient justification for such an extraordinary step.

The appellant, seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident, sued her insurer for bad faith in handling her statutory accident benefits (SABs) claim, seeking punitive and exemplary damages.

The insurer had failed for approximately three years to advise the appellant or her parents that her injuries qualified as a catastrophic impairment or to inform them of available benefits.

The motion judge struck the statement of claim, finding that the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) had exclusive jurisdiction under section 280 of the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, holding that the dispute resolution provisions of the Insurance Act apply broadly to disputes concerning SABs entitlement and administration, regardless of whether the claim is characterized as one for bad faith.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his application for attendant care and housekeeping benefits as statute-barred.

The applicant argued the insurer's denial letter was ambiguous, that subsequent payments negated the denial, and raised Charter and discoverability arguments.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the adjudicator made no significant errors of law.

The denial letter was clear and unequivocal, subsequent payments after the limitation period expired did not revive the claim, and the adjudicator properly declined the Charter argument due to lack of required notice.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that found her claim for non-earner benefits was statute-barred.

The applicant argued the insurer's denial letter was not clear and unequivocal and that subsequent actions created reasonable doubt.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no significant error of law or fact in the original decision, as the denial was clear and the insurer's subsequent actions were part of its ongoing obligation to adjust the file.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision from Barrie to Toronto.

The collision occurred in Toronto, and all parties, counsel, and potential witnesses, including medical professionals, were located in or near Toronto.

The plaintiff did not respond to the motion.

The court applied the factors under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and concluded that Toronto was a substantially better venue, as there was no connection between the action and Barrie.

The motion to transfer was granted.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found her claim for attendant care and housekeeping benefits was statute-barred.

The applicant argued that the limitation period should not begin to run until she was found to be catastrophically impaired, relying on the doctrine of discoverability.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the limitation period under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule is a 'hard' limitation period triggered by the insurer's clear and unequivocal refusal to pay the benefit, regardless of whether the claimant is aware they have a claim at that time.

The applicant, who was a minor at the time of the motor vehicle accident, sought a non-earner benefit which was denied by the respondent insurer in 2012.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal in 2017, more than two years after turning 18.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was statute-barred.

The Tribunal found that the 2012 denial was clear and unequivocal, triggering the limitation period when the applicant turned 18.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, finding no bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, an unreasonable delay, and prejudice to the respondent.

The application for the non-earner benefit was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought attendant care and housekeeping benefits following a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits in October 2011.

The applicant later sought the benefits at a higher tier after being determined catastrophically impaired, arguing the limitation period did not apply or was negated by subsequent payments.

The Tribunal found the 2011 denial letter was clear and unequivocal, triggering the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act.

The Tribunal held that discoverability does not apply to the statutory accident benefits scheme and that a subsequent catastrophic impairment determination does not trigger a new limitation period.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The plaintiff sued her insurer for bad faith, negligence, and fraud in the administration of her statutory accident benefits claim following a motor vehicle accident.

The defendant insurer brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the statement of claim, arguing the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) had exclusive jurisdiction under section 280 of the Insurance Act.

The court agreed, finding that the essential character of the dispute concerned the denial of accident benefits, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LAT regardless of how the claim is legally characterized.

The statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed her application for statutory accident benefits as time-barred.

The applicant argued that the two-year limitation period did not start to run until she was deemed catastrophically impaired and that the doctrine of discoverability applied.

The Executive Chair denied the request for reconsideration, finding that the request was filed late without an acceptable excuse.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to establish any significant error of law or fact in the Tribunal's original decision regarding the limitation period, the doctrine of discoverability, or the refusal to allow an expert witness.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) from the Insurer.

The Insurer disputed the quantum of the Applicant's pre-accident self-employment income and argued that Canada Pension Plan (CPP) disability benefits should be deducted from any IRBs payable.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant's 2014 income tax return and customer list provided sufficient reliable evidence of her pre-accident income.

The Arbitrator also held that the Insurer was entitled to offset potential CPP disability benefits from the IRBs starting 18 months post-accident, as the Applicant had an obligation to apply for them.

The Applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed as the Insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2008.

In 2010, the respondent insurer denied ongoing attendant care and housekeeping benefits beyond the 104-week mark unless the applicant was determined to be catastrophically impaired.

The applicant did not dispute this denial within the two-year limitation period.

In 2015, the applicant applied for and was granted a catastrophic impairment designation, and subsequently sought ongoing benefits.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the initial denial was not disputed in time.

The Tribunal found that the 2010 denial was clear and unequivocal, triggering the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's arguments that the denial was invalid because she had not yet been found catastrophically impaired, and that the discoverability principle applied.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that a settlement was invalid because the claimant had died prior to the settlement being reached.

The Director's Delegate found that the arbitrator misapprehended the facts, as both parties were aware of the claimant's death when the settlement was negotiated.

Applying the doctrine of relation back, the Director's Delegate held that the settlement was binding, as the solicitor subsequently met the conditions to remedy his lack of authority.

The appeal was allowed and the arbitrator's order was rescinded.

The Applicant sought income replacement benefits, medical benefits, and the cost of assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Respondent denied the benefits, arguing the Applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment and that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found no procedural errors in the Respondent's denial of benefits.

Relying on video surveillance that contradicted the Applicant's self-reported limitations, the Tribunal found the Applicant's evidence unreliable and concluded she was not eligible for income replacement benefits.

Furthermore, the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries fell outside the MIG.

As the Applicant had already received the maximum $3,500 in medical benefits under the MIG, the claims for additional treatment and assessments were dismissed.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received attendant care and housekeeping benefits for 104 weeks.

The Insurer then issued a refusal to pay further benefits, citing the 104-week limit.

Over eight years later, the Applicant disputed the refusal, arguing that the limitation period did not apply because he was later deemed catastrophically impaired, which would entitle him to post-104 week benefits.

The Arbitrator held that the Insurer's refusal was clear and unequivocal, and the Applicant missed the two-year limitation period to dispute it.

The Applicant is therefore precluded from proceeding to arbitration regarding his entitlement to these benefits.