Mark Stoiko

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit, attendant care benefits, and various medical treatment plans, following a 2021 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's substantial physical and psychological impairments pre-dated the 2021 accident, largely stemming from a 2016 accident and prior trauma, and that he failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life caused by the 2021 accident.

The claimed treatment plans were denied as not reasonable and necessary, and the attendant care claim was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove economic loss sustained by his family care providers.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a jury trial where The Co-operators General Insurance Company was wholly successful in two consolidated claims against Bagwandat (Ron) Doobay.

The jury found Mr. Doobay not catastrophically impaired, not entitled to income replacement benefits, and awarded Co-operators $60,000 for repayment of benefits and punitive damages.

The court awarded Co-operators substantial indemnity costs from the date of their offer to settle and partial indemnity costs prior to that, totaling $135,400.00.

The court rejected Mr. Doobay's argument of impecuniosity, noting his prior assets and the existence of an adverse costs insurance policy.

It also ruled that costs previously awarded in arbitration could not be claimed in these court proceedings.

This motion addressed the quantum of interest owing on litigation loans obtained by the plaintiff, Rudolph Steinberg, from BridgePoint Financial Services Limited.

The plaintiff argued the high interest rates were unconscionable and sought a cap on the interest.

The court found the loan agreements contractually sound, noting the plaintiff received legal advice and acknowledged the terms.

While largely rejecting the unconscionability argument, the court granted a reduction of $75,000 in accrued interest due to legitimate delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, balancing this against the plaintiff's own conduct which had exacerbated the accrual of interest.

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

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he made a material misrepresentation regarding his address.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant made a material misrepresentation by failing to notify the insurer that he lived in Mississauga rather than Hamilton, which resulted in a lower insurance premium.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to an income replacement benefit, medical benefits beyond the MIG limit, interest, or an award.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment from a 2006 automobile accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by mischaracterizing evidence, failing to give sufficient weight to his testimony, and violating procedural fairness by relying on hearsay medical records over live testimony.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding the Tribunal properly weighed contemporaneous documentary evidence over unreliable testimony and that the applicant's procedural fairness rights were not violated as he had the opportunity to test the hearsay evidence but chose not to.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment from a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness by relying on hearsay evidence from medical reports and erred in finding his expert witness recanted his opinion.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the hearsay evidence was only one of many factors considered and the applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine on it.

The Tribunal also found no error regarding the expert witness, who admitted during cross-examination that his opinion was inaccurate because he had not reviewed crucial medical records that contradicted the applicant's self-reports.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7.

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a catastrophic impairment assessment, arguing the issue was res judicata based on a prior Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal found res judicata did not apply as the current treatment plan was new.

On the merits, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence that the applicant's spinal stenosis and resulting physical impairments were caused by pre-existing degenerative changes rather than the accident.

As the physical impairments were not accident-related, the applicant could not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold.

The application for a catastrophic impairment assessment and interest was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her statement of claim to add a claim for punitive and aggravated damages, nearly 12 years after the motor vehicle accident and after the action had been set down for trial and case managed for two years.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the egregious delay led to a presumption of non-compensable prejudice to the defendant, making it inappropriate to grant the amendment on the "eve of trial."

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental and behavioural disorder following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not credible, noting significant inconsistencies between his testimony, pre-accident medical records, and surveillance video showing him performing activities he claimed he could not do.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his psychological impairments and functional limitations were caused by the accident, as he had significant pre-existing conditions and was completely disabled prior to the accident.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

Following a 14-day trial where the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim was dismissed, the successful defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff argued that his impecuniosity, relying on social assistance, should insulate him from an adverse costs award.

The court rejected this argument, noting the plaintiff had access to after-the-event insurance and that impecuniosity rarely prevents a costs award.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs, reducing the claimed fees and disbursements to an amount reasonable for an unsuccessful litigant to pay, fixing total costs at $158,000.

The plaintiff moved to set aside an order requiring in-person defence medical examinations, citing COVID-19 concerns and relying on Rule 59.06.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to vary the order due to changes in expert availability and location.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence, largely hearsay from counsel's associate, insufficient to justify setting aside the order and drew an adverse inference from the lack of direct evidence from the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion but granted the defendant's request to amend the order to reflect the new experts and examination locations, finding the plaintiff's refusal to consent unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision, including a non-earner benefit and various medical and rehabilitation benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, assistive devices, and an in-home assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting her evidence was inconsistent and uncorroborated.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits, relying on insurer's examinations and finding that the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary given the lack of functional improvement from prior treatments.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and denied his claim for income replacement benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator ignored relevant caselaw, failed to declare the Minor Injury Guideline of no force and effect, misapplied the 'but for' test for causation, and erred in preferring the respondent's psychological expert over his own.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness or errors of law.

The constitutional challenge lacked required notice, the causation test was correctly applied to find dizziness was pre-existing, and the adjudicator was entitled to prefer the in-person expert assessment over a telephone-based report containing factual errors.

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

The respondent insurer determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied non-earner benefits and certain treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly soft tissue injuries falling within the MIG, and she failed to prove that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to perform many pre-accident activities.

The disputed chiropractic treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and claims for a special award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various treatment and assessment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the plans, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary and that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's medical evidence, which included unreliable clinical notes and inconsistent subjective reports, failed to support the need for ongoing treatment or assessments.

All claims for treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant failed to submit her application within the 30-day time limit prescribed by section 32 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant submitted her application nearly a year after receiving the forms, explaining that she 'takes her time doing things.' The adjudicator found that the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay under section 34 of the Schedule.

Consequently, the application was dismissed as statute-barred under section 55.

The applicant sought entitlement to non-earner benefits and two physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies in her testimony, a lack of supporting medical documentation, and surveillance evidence showing her engaging in various activities such as driving and shopping.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, finding the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, relying on insurer examination reports that concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and should continue with a self-directed home exercise program.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied certain benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and was not removed from the MIG due to a pre-existing psychological condition or post-accident psychological injuries.

The Tribunal awarded income replacement benefits for a limited period when the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The Tribunal also approved one psychological assessment as reasonable and necessary, but denied other treatment plans.

The Stevens defendants brought a motion seeking leave to compel the plaintiff, Emanuel Ismail, to undergo an independent psychiatric examination.

The plaintiff had previously submitted a psychologist's report and initially agreed to a psychiatric assessment but later refused, citing concerns about location, number of visits, and the necessity of a psychiatrist to respond to a psychologist.

The court granted leave for the motion and ordered the plaintiff to attend the psychiatric examination, emphasizing the systemic issue of late expert reports and the need for trial fairness.

The court found that a psychiatric assessment was necessary given the plaintiff's use of anti-depressant medication and the claim for future care costs related to it, distinguishing this case from others where such examinations were deemed unnecessary.

The defendant moved to dismiss a motor vehicle accident action for delay under the Rules of Civil Procedure, relying on the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with a litigation timetable and to set the matter down for trial.

A plaintiff brought a cross‑motion to vary the timetable order previously imposed when the action was reinstated after an administrative dismissal.

The court held that the earlier reinstatement order effectively displaced reliance on the six‑month set‑down requirement and that dismissal for delay was not warranted.

While most of the delay was attributable to the plaintiffs, including missed deadlines and discovery delays partly arising from conflict-of-interest issues among plaintiffs, the court emphasized the preference for resolving civil actions on their merits.

The timetable order was varied and the action permitted to proceed, subject to the defendant’s ability to raise prejudice at trial arising from incomplete medical records.