Matthew Jordan Cino

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment for damages arising from the defendants' breach of an agreement of purchase and sale for residential property.

The defendants agreed to purchase the property for $1,600,000 with an August 15, 2022 closing date but failed to close because the sale of their own home did not complete.

The plaintiffs subsequently resold the property to third parties for $1,325,000.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the agreement was unconditional, the defendants breached by failing to close, and the plaintiffs took reasonable mitigation steps.

The court awarded damages of $169,376.51 after deducting the forfeited deposit and saved commissions.

The plaintiff, Sameer Kochhar, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, McCall & Co., Andrew McCall, and Corey Rowe, for damages arising from an uncompleted renovation project, alleging breach of contract and fraud.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court granted compensatory damages of $31,500 and punitive damages of $30,000, finding the defendants' conduct intentional, deliberate, and reprehensible, especially given one defendant's criminal conviction for fraud related to the same facts.

The court declined to issue a premature declaration that the debt would survive bankruptcy, but characterized the debt as arising from false pretenses or fraudulent misrepresentation under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a substantial indemnity basis.

The applicant sought a declaration regarding ownership of chattels left on a property sold to one respondent, and damages for lost chattels.

The court found an agreement for storage constituted a gratuitous bailment, not a license, and that the chattels were not abandoned.

The respondent bailee improperly transferred possession of the chattels to a subsequent purchaser.

The court declared the applicant's ownership of the remaining chattels and ordered damages for the lost ones.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision granting the insured partial payment for multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment assessments.

The insurer argued the OCF-18 was invalid because it was completed by a chiropractor recommending assessments outside her scope of practice, and that the assessments were unpayable 'rebuttal' reports.

The Adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration, finding that a chiropractor may recommend assessments by other specialists and that the reports were the insured's first set of assessments, not rebuttals.

Although a procedural error occurred regarding post-hearing submissions, it was remedied on reconsideration.

The insurer's request was dismissed, and the insured's request for costs was denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2000 and sought funding for multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment (CAT) assessments.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan, arguing the assessments were not reasonable or necessary and relying on its own insurer's examinations which concluded the applicant did not meet the CAT threshold.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to explore whether she was catastrophically impaired and that the insurer's completion of its own CAT assessments supported the need for the applicant to obtain her own reports.

The Tribunal awarded $14,000 for seven of the requested assessments, as well as $400 for the completion of the OCF-18 and OCF-19 forms.

Claims for file review and psychometric testing fees were denied as duplicative.

The applicant's claim for a special award under Ontario Regulation 664 was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 1997.

In 2017, she submitted a treatment plan (OCF-18) for a catastrophic impairment assessment, which the respondent denied.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not time-barred from submitting the OCF-18, as a catastrophic impairment determination is not a medical or rehabilitation benefit subject to the 10-year limitation period.

However, the Tribunal determined that the 2010 Schedule governed the claim and that the requested assessment was not reasonable or necessary, given the lack of evidence showing a deterioration in the applicant's condition since her previous assessments in 2007.

The claims for an award and costs were also dismissed.

The applicant sought expenses following an arbitration decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The insurer argued for a reduced amount or that each party bear their own expenses due to divided success.

The arbitrator found the applicant was more successful overall and entitled to expenses.

Applying the principle of fairness and legal aid rates, the arbitrator fixed the applicant's expenses at $54,250.27 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

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

After disputes arose, she applied for arbitration but subsequently failed to communicate with her counsel or attend the hearing.

At the hearing, the applicant's counsel successfully moved to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The insurer then moved to dismiss the application with costs.

The arbitrator granted the dismissal, finding the applicant had abandoned her claim, and ordered her to pay $1,000 in costs to the insurer.