Louise A. James

The applicant sought entitlement to various treatment and assessment plans following a motor vehicle accident, as well as an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found the applicant entitled to psychological services, a neurological assessment, a biopsychosocial assessment, an ENT assessment, and a sleep quality assessment, largely due to the insurer's failure to provide compliant medical reasons for denial under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

However, the Tribunal denied the claims for chiropractic services, finding them not reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence and the insurer's orthopaedic assessment.

The request for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed, as the insurer's conduct did not rise to the level of unreasonable behaviour.

An insurer sought default judgment against an uninsured defendant following settlement with the plaintiff.

The insurer had taken an assignment of the plaintiff's action and settled for $105,000.

The court considered whether the settlement amount could be used as a proxy for damages in the absence of detailed evidence regarding the plaintiff's injuries and losses.

The court found insufficient evidence to establish the reasonableness of the settlement and declined to grant judgment, allowing the insurer 21 days to file additional evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for service of a statement of claim and to increase the prayer for relief to $10,000,000.

The plaintiff was uninsured when his vehicle was struck by the defendants in a private parking lot.

Relying on mistaken legal advice that uninsured motorists cannot sue for torts in private lots, the plaintiff's former counsel issued but did not serve the claim.

Years later, new counsel discovered the unserved claim and served it.

The court granted the extension, finding no actual prejudice to the defendants because their insurer had extensively investigated the plaintiff's injuries through his accident benefits claim, and the plaintiff adequately explained the delay as reliance on faulty legal advice.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim and a co-defendant's crossclaim in a motor vehicle personal injury action.

The moving parties relied on an expert report attached to an affidavit from an associate lawyer.

The court gave no weight to the expert report because it was provided via information and belief, depriving the responding parties of the opportunity to cross-examine the expert.

Finding three conflicting accounts of the accident and substantial issues of credibility and reliability, the court concluded there were genuine issues requiring a trial and dismissed the motion.

A client appealed a decision confirming an assessment officer's assessment of a lawyer's fees and disbursements at $125,602.83.

The lawyer had been retained under a contingency fee agreement that provided for hourly billing if the retainer was terminated.

After the solicitor-client relationship broke down, the client retained new counsel and later self-represented.

The client settled a claim against Food Basics for $30,000, with the settlement agreement providing that costs be paid directly to the lawyer.

The assessment officer rejected the client's argument that an undertaking limiting recovery to $50,000 applied, finding that the undertaking no longer governed once the client self-represented.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error and confirming the assessment officer's jurisdiction and reasoning.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The plaintiff sustained injuries, including blurred vision, but returned to work and did not seek further treatment until his condition worsened over a year later.

The court applied the discoverability principle, noting that an expert ophthalmologist could not have determined the permanence of the eye injury within the first year.

The court found the plaintiff's claim was issued within the two-year limitation period and dismissed the defendants' motion.

The moving party (Third Party) brought a motion to set aside an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court, which had quashed its appeal from a Master's interlocutory orders regarding the procedure for a trade secrets protection motion.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the Master's orders were interlocutory and properly appealable only to a judge of the Superior Court.

The court also dismissed the moving party's requests to vary the order to permit examination of opposing counsel and to delete portions of the judge's endorsement, characterizing the moving party's conduct as an abuse of process.

The responding party's cross-motion was granted in part, requiring the moving party to obtain leave before bringing further procedural motions.

Full indemnity costs were awarded against the moving party.

The appellant tripped and fell on a hole in an asphalt walkway on the grounds of a public school during the summer.

A jury found that the respondent school board had not breached its duty under section 3 of the Occupiers' Liability Act and that the appellant was responsible for her injuries.

The appellant appealed, arguing the jury's verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding there was a basis on the record for the jury to conclude the respondent had taken reasonable care, given its system of maintenance and the reduced use of the school yard during the summer.

The appellant was injured in a three-car collision in 2003.

She commenced an action against one driver in 2005 and later obtained an order to add the other driver and owner as defendants in 2007.

The motion judge granted summary judgment dismissing the action against the added defendants because the two-year limitation period had expired.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no genuine issue for trial as the appellant had all necessary information to discover her claim against the added defendants by June 2005 at the latest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated the benefits but, due to a clerical error, continued to issue payments for nearly a year, resulting in an overpayment of $19,542.86.

The applicant applied for arbitration but failed to appear at the hearing.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claims for ongoing benefits and ordered the applicant to repay the overpaid amount plus interest, as the insurer had provided notice of the error within the required 12-month period.