Maciek Piekosz

The respondent insurer brought a motion for the production of the appellant's medical records and information regarding a subsequent insurance policy.

The appellant opposed the motion, arguing that the only issue in the appeal was whether he had a reasonable explanation for submitting his claim late, making medical records irrelevant.

The Tribunal granted the motion, finding that there was a medical issue in the appeal regarding the cost of a Disability Certificate, and that the requested documents were relevant to assessing the appellant's credibility and his explanation for the delay.

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

The Tribunal found the Applicant was entitled to the balance of a 2015 treatment plan for documentation and an assessment, as the insurer had previously approved the documentation and failed to provide medical reasons for denying the assessment.

The Tribunal denied a 2016 physiotherapy treatment plan, finding the claimed shoulder and back impairments were not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue payments and granted a maximum 50% special award under section 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer's refusal to pay an explicitly approved expense and failure to update its denial notice to be unreasonable.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents and sought non-earner benefits for both.

The insurer moved to bar the appeals, arguing they were filed beyond the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the appeal for the first accident was statute-barred as the denial notice was clear and unequivocal.

However, the appeal for the second accident was allowed to proceed because the insurer issued multiple, confusing denial notices with changing reasons, which misled the applicant regarding the limitation period.

The applicant's request for costs was denied.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of her action for injuries sustained in a slip and fall on an icy, sloped municipal boulevard connecting to a private driveway.

She argued the municipality owed a higher standard of maintenance because pedestrians occasionally cross there, and that the adjacent property owner was an occupier of the boulevard.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the municipality's maintenance standard was for vehicles, not pedestrians, and the adjacent owner did not exercise control over the boulevard to qualify as an occupier.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision where liability was admitted and damages remained in issue, the plaintiff moved to exclude evidence from experts who prepared accident benefits reports for the plaintiff’s insurer.

The plaintiff argued the reports were irrelevant, non-compliant with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, prejudicial to trial fairness, and duplicative.

The court held that although the experts had not signed the Form 53 acknowledgement required under Rule 53.03(2.1), the rule applied even to experts retained by non-parties and the non‑compliance could be cured by granting leave subject to obtaining the acknowledgement.

The court found portions of the reports remained relevant to the plaintiff’s cognitive, emotional, and physical condition at an intermediate stage following the accident, though opinions on employability were excluded as no longer relevant.

The motion to exclude the expert evidence was dismissed, subject to conditions.