Lucie Pivrnec

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an incident where he was driving his motorcycle and got into a physical altercation with another driver due to road rage.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal applied the two-part Greenhalgh test and found that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The physical altercation was an intervening act and the dominant feature of the injuries, not the use or operation of the motorcycle.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits for home modifications and assistive devices.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to $8,960.22 for assistive devices, including a wheelchair and a specialized mattress, as they were reasonable and necessary to improve her independence and manage pain.

However, claims for a housing assessment balance and architectural drawings were dismissed, as the insurer had already paid the maximum allowable for the assessment, and the drawings were premature without an approved home modification plan.

The claim for an award under O. Reg. 664 was also dismissed.

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

After a dispute arose, the applicant applied for mandatory mediation, which was delayed for over a year.

On the scheduled date, the mediator determined that mediation did not take place and closed the file without issuing a Mediator's Report.

The applicant subsequently applied for arbitration.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant was precluded from proceeding to arbitration under section 281(2) of the Insurance Act because mediation had not failed.

The arbitrator found that the mediation failed by statutory definition when the agreed time for mediation expired without a settlement.

The arbitrator exercised discretion to waive the requirement for a Mediator's Report, allowing the applicant to proceed to arbitration, and awarded the applicant $1,500 in expenses.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding damages and costs arising from a breach of fiduciary duty.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal on damages, finding no error in the trial judge's calculation or refusal to award punitive damages.

However, the court allowed the appeal on costs, finding the trial judge erred in denying costs under Rule 76.13(3) because the action included non-monetary claims and faced a substantial counterclaim, making the ordinary procedure appropriate.

The appellant was awarded trial costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The appellant passenger was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and was found 35 per cent contributorily negligent by a jury for failing to wear an available shoulder harness, despite wearing a lap belt.

The Court of Appeal held that the jury's assessment was unreasonable, as contributory negligence solely for failing to wear a seatbelt should not exceed 25 per cent.

The court substituted an assessment of 5 per cent contributory negligence, noting the appellant complied with the statutory requirement to wear a lap belt and the shoulder harness was a non-retracting type that was commonly worn improperly.