Lucianna Saplywy

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to medication costs (Cialis) and a determination of catastrophic impairment based on mental and behavioural disorders (Criterion 8).

The Tribunal dismissed the application.

The claim for medication was denied because the applicant failed to prove the prescription was necessitated by the accident rather than other substances, such as hair loss medication or bodybuilding supplements.

On the catastrophic impairment issue, the Tribunal found the applicant had a marked impairment in only one domain (adaptation) and moderate impairments in the other three (activities of daily living; social functioning; concentration, persistence and pace), falling short of the threshold requiring marked impairment in three domains.

Following an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment by the moving defendants, the successful plaintiffs and co-defendants sought their costs.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, finding the motion was neither frivolous nor vexatious but was exceedingly complex.

The court excluded the plaintiffs' disbursements for expert reports, determining that those reports were necessary for trial in any event and should be assessed by the trial judge.

Total costs of $16,234.68 were awarded to the plaintiffs and $8,243.83 to the co-defendants.

The defendants, Bryan Watt and Bruce E. Smith Ltd., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims and all crossclaims against them arising from a three-vehicle collision on the QEW.

The moving parties relied on expert evidence suggesting the defendant driver's reaction time was reasonable.

The plaintiffs relied on competing expert evidence suggesting the accident was avoidable.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting factual evidence and competing expert opinions regarding perception-response time and looming required a full trial to resolve.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being struck in the head by a piece of fruit thrown by an 11-year-old boy from a passing school bus while she was stopped at a red light.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The arbitrator applied the two-part test from Greenhalgh and found that while the applicant met the purpose test, she failed the causation test.

The arbitrator concluded that the dominant feature of the incident was the thrown fruit, constituting an assault, and the use or operation of the motor vehicle was merely the location of the incident.

The application was dismissed.