Lisa Quan

The Law Society of Ontario brought a motion to dismiss Christian Chukwuedozie Chijindu's application to the Superior Court, in which he sought to reinstate his law license after it was revoked by the Law Society Tribunal and all subsequent appeals, including to the Supreme Court of Canada, were exhausted.

Chijindu invoked the Superior Court's jurisdiction under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging unequal treatment and systemic anti-Black racism.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to overturn the Tribunal's revocation or compel the Law Society to reinstate the license, as these remedies are not within the Superior Court's purview, which is limited to appellate or judicial review roles allocated to the Divisional Court.

The motion to dismiss was granted, and Chijindu's application was dismissed with costs awarded to the Law Society.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the applicant's claims for chiropractic treatment plans and a chronic pain assessment, finding they were not reasonable and necessary given the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence and the applicant's high level of post-accident physical activity.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's claims for a driving assessment, psychological assessment, cognitive assessment, and psychological treatment, finding that the medical evidence supported an exacerbation of pre-existing psychological issues, including vehicular anxiety.

The applicant's claim for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

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

The respondent denied certain medical benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were minor and that she failed to establish chronic pain or an accident-related psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that barred her claims for attendant care, housekeeping/home maintenance benefits, and transportation expenses.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was attempting to reargue the issue regarding the full and final release for the attendant care and housekeeping benefits.

For the transportation expenses, although the parties agreed no binding settlement was reached, the Tribunal found the claim was time-barred under s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule as it was brought more than two years after the denial.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant, who was 11 years old at the time of the motor vehicle accident, sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits outside the Minor Injury Guideline.

The adjudicator found that the applicant established entitlement to a treatment plan for physiotherapy and chiropractic services, as they were reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident.

However, the remaining benefits for occupational therapy and psychological assessments were denied because they either exceeded the maximum amount payable for an assessment or were not supported by objective medical evidence from qualified practitioners.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that their injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence for the hearing.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding no evidence to support the claim that the injuries fell outside the guideline or that the disputed treatment plan was reasonable and necessary.

The respondent's request for costs was denied, as the applicant's failure to file submissions did not amount to bad faith or vexatious conduct.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits and the cost of examinations from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the maximum funding limit had been exhausted.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that she failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain that would exclude her from the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic treatment and a psychological assessment were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 1996 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer raised preliminary issues, arguing that the applicant's claims for attendant care, housekeeping, transportation, and home modifications were barred by full and final releases and the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal held that the claims for attendant care, housekeeping, and transportation were captured by validly executed full and final releases and could not proceed.

However, the claim for home modifications was a rehabilitation benefit specifically excluded from the release.

Furthermore, the claim for home modifications was not time-barred because the insurer's 2010 denial was not clear and unequivocal, and the effective denial date for the new treatment plan was October 25, 2017.

The home modifications claim was permitted to proceed to a substantive hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received attendant care benefits, which were subsequently denied.

The parties executed a partial release for past benefits up to May 11, 2017.

The applicant later submitted a new treatment plan and assessment form, which the respondent denied on the basis that the benefits had been terminated more than two years prior.

The respondent argued the applicant was statute-barred from disputing the denial.

The Tribunal found that while the initial denial was clear and unequivocal, the justice of the case required extending the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.

The Tribunal reasoned that the partial release only extinguished past claims, giving the applicant a bona fide belief that future claims remained open, and found minimal prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB), which the respondent insurer denied.

The applicant filed an appeal to the Licence Appeal Tribunal two days after the two-year limitation period expired, due to a fax transmission error by her legal representative.

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

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test from Manuel and found that the applicant had a bona fide intention to appeal, provided a reasonable explanation for the short delay, and that there was minimal prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal concluded that the justice of the case warranted extending the limitation period under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, allowing the applicant to proceed with her dispute.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle, sought statutory accident benefits including income replacement benefits (IRBs), physical rehabilitation therapy, and a physiatry assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment, noting he returned to work with increased hours shortly after the accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for IRBs and physical therapy, but granted the cost of a physiatry assessment to determine if a herniated disc was accident-related.

Claims for interest, a special award, and adding a new issue were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming chronic pain, post-traumatic fibromyalgia, and sleep disorder to escape the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found the applicant's evidence of functional limitations and pain severity to be vague, inconsistent, and contradicted by his family doctor's records.

The adjudicator rejected the applicant's expert opinion and concluded the injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries subject to the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the claimed medical and assessment benefits were denied.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The plaintiff, Herbert Alexander, sought unidentified motorist coverage from his insurer, State Farm, following a multi-vehicle collision.

Alexander alleged he was rear-ended by an unidentified vehicle, which propelled his vehicle into the O'Sullivan vehicle.

State Farm moved for summary judgment, contending there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the involvement of an unidentified driver, citing a lack of physical evidence and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's account.

The court, exercising its enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1), found the plaintiff's uncorroborated evidence unconvincing and determined that expert reports did not support the claim of a rear-end impact without observable damage.

Summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against State Farm.

The applicant sought medical benefits for psychotherapy and driving reintegration sessions, as well as transportation expenses, following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent partially approved the medical benefits but denied the enhanced hourly rates and two-hour sessions requested, as well as the transportation expenses.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide medical evidence justifying the enhanced rates or longer sessions.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for transportation expenses because the applicant failed to establish a causal link between his licence suspension and the accident, and failed to provide the required particulars.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought a medical benefit for psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plan based on an insurer examination.

The Tribunal found the applicant's self-reporting to his own psychologist was contradicted by his statements to the insurer's assessor, where he minimized his symptoms.

Given the lack of corroborating evidence and the unexplained discrepancies in self-reporting, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary.

The claims for the medical benefit, a special award, and interest were dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking an order extending the time for service of an amended statement of claim on several defendants, an order dispensing with or for substitute service on one defendant (Danny Grossi), and leave to amend the statement of claim to correct a misspelling.

The responding defendants opposed the extension of time for service.

The court granted the extension of time for service and leave to amend, finding no prejudice to the defendants.

The request for dispensing with or substitute service on Danny Grossi was dismissed without prejudice due to insufficient evidence regarding his current address or legal representation.

Costs were awarded to the responding defendants in the cause.

The applicant failed to attend her scheduled arbitration hearing.

Her counsel brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and an inability to contact the applicant.

The arbitrator granted the motion to remove counsel.

The insurer requested that the application for arbitration be dismissed with costs.

The arbitrator dismissed the application due to the applicant's failure to attend and meet her onus of proof, and awarded $1,452.61 in expenses to the insurer.

The plaintiffs appealed a Master's order removing their lawyer of record to the Divisional Court.

A preliminary jurisdictional issue arose regarding whether the order was final or interlocutory.

The Divisional Court held that, based on established jurisprudence, an order removing a lawyer of record is interlocutory in nature.

Consequently, the appeal properly lies to a judge of the Superior Court of Justice, not the Divisional Court.

The appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction.