Lisa K. Van Arnhem

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming chronic pain and psychological impairments removed him from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, noting inconsistencies in the applicant's expert reports and preferring the thoroughness of the insurer's examinations.

As the injuries fell within the MIG, the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits or the disputed medical and examination expenses.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The Applicant sought both non-earner benefits and income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer argued the Applicant was required to elect one benefit and that she had qualified for income replacement benefits, barring her from non-earner benefits.

The Tribunal found that the insurer failed to provide the required notice of election under s. 35(1) of the Schedule when it became aware the Applicant was self-employed.

As no election was provided, the Applicant is entitled to seek both benefits at the hearing, though she cannot recover both concurrently.

Following trial, the court determined entitlement and quantum of costs after the defendant succeeded and the plaintiff failed to respond to the defendant’s bill of costs.

The court considered the presumptive consequences under Rule 49.10 where a party obtains a result as good as or better than a settlement offer, as well as the discretionary factors under Rule 57.01.

While acknowledging the plaintiff’s sympathetic financial circumstances, the court held that sympathy cannot displace the usual costs consequences where the plaintiff was represented by experienced counsel and proceeded despite litigation risks.

The court scrutinized the defendant’s bill of costs and reduced several claimed amounts due to lack of detail and excessive disbursements, including photocopying and expert witness preparation fees.

Costs were fixed with partial indemnity before the offer and substantial indemnity thereafter, subject to reductions.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including caregiver and non-earner benefits, from her insurer.

The insurer terminated caregiver benefits after 104 weeks, prompting the plaintiff to sue for the benefits, as well as damages for bad faith and mental distress.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the claim was statute-barred because it was commenced more than two years after the insurer's clear refusal to pay.

Furthermore, the court held that even if the claim were not statute-barred, the plaintiff failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, largely due to pre-existing conditions and a lack of objective medical evidence.

The claims for bad faith and mental distress were also dismissed as the insurer's conduct was reasonable and there was insufficient evidence of compensable distress.

The applicants, a husband and wife, filed three arbitration applications for statutory accident benefits arising from two motor vehicle accidents.

At a pre-hearing, the issue was whether the three applications should be combined.

The arbitrator ordered that the wife's two applications be heard together, as they involved overlapping claims and causation issues.

However, the husband's application was ordered to be heard separately, as the issues, expert witnesses, and nature of the claims were significantly different, and combining them would not result in the most just, quickest, and least expensive means to deal with the applications.