Lora Castellucci

The appellant defendants appealed a motion judge's decision regarding the payment of settlement funds.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a defendant who pays settlement funds directly to a plaintiff in the face of a Solicitors Act charging order does so at its peril.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding party solicitors.

Certas Home & Auto Insurance Company appealed an interim arbitration decision which held that Unifund Assurance Company had complied with the notice provisions under s. 3(1) of O. Reg. 283/95 (Disputes Between Insurers) by providing timely notice of a priority dispute for statutory accident benefits.

The core issue was the interpretation of "completed application" and when the 90-day notice period for disputing liability began.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law or palpable and overriding error in the arbitrator's interpretation or application of the regulation.

The court affirmed that a "completed application" for the purpose of s. 3 means one that provides sufficient information to allow the first insurer to notify another insurer of a dispute, not merely a filled-out and signed OCF-1 form.

Three appeals were heard together to determine whether the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the two-year limitation period for filing appeals set out in s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The Divisional Court held that s. 7 does grant the LAT jurisdiction to extend the s. 56 limitation period, as the time limit is fixed 'under an Act' (the Insurance Act).

The Court dismissed the insurers' appeals challenging the LAT's jurisdiction and its exercise of discretion to grant extensions, finding no errors of law.

In the third appeal, where the adjudicator had found no jurisdiction, the Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the LAT to consider the extension request.

Three appeals were scheduled to be heard regarding whether the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) has jurisdiction under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the two-year limitation period for statutory accident benefits applications.

The LAT had previously made conflicting decisions on this issue and indicated it did not intend to appear.

The Divisional Court adjourned the appeals and ordered the LAT to intervene and file materials to assist the court in determining the jurisdictional issue.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's proceeding, the respondent sought costs.

The court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding the hours and billable rates claimed to be reasonable.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $7,788.37.

The applicant sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision dismissing her complaint that her former employer, a housing cooperative, engaged in reprisals against her for enforcing her rights under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the employer's actions, including extending her probation and terminating her employment, were motivated by her health and safety complaints.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and found the Tribunal's findings of fact and legal analysis were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with breaching section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act for using a cell phone while driving.

A police officer testified that he observed the defendant holding and scrolling through a cell phone while stopped at a red light.

The defendant testified that his phone was mounted on the dashboard and he only touched it to activate Bluetooth connectivity.

The trial judge convicted the defendant, finding the officer's evidence more credible.

The defendant appealed, arguing the trial judge's reasons failed to adequately explain the path to conviction and that the trial judge failed to apply the burden of proof correctly.