Matthew J. Stepura

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, including assessments and chiropractic treatment, following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on insurer's examinations and social media surveillance showing the applicant travelling internationally and engaging in physical activities.

The Tribunal found that only one chiropractic treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, supported by the family physician's recommendations.

The remaining assessment and treatment plans were denied, as the evidence demonstrated the applicant had returned to her pre-accident functional level and did not exhibit symptoms warranting further investigation.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's claim for an award under Regulation 664, finding no unreasonable delay by the respondent.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer suspended the IRBs after receiving medical assessment reports indicating the applicant had returned to work, and requested further documentation regarding post-accident income pursuant to section 33 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant failed to produce the requested bank statements and maintained he had not returned to work.

The Tribunal found the respondent's request for documentation was justified, relying on surveillance evidence and assessors' reports that contradicted the applicant's claims.

Due to the applicant's non-compliance with section 33, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for IRBs and interest.

Two appeals were heard together regarding whether the equitable doctrine of laches can defeat a first party insurer's loss-transfer claim under s. 275 of the Insurance Act.

In both cases, the first party insurers delayed several years before requesting indemnification from the second party insurers.

The Court of Appeal held that the defence of laches cannot be invoked against a statutory loss-transfer claim, as it is a claim for legal relief subject to the Limitations Act, 2002, which no longer contains a laches-saving provision.

Furthermore, even if laches were available, the second party insurers failed to demonstrate acquiescence or actual prejudice.

Lombard's appeal was dismissed and TD's appeal was allowed.

Plaintiffs involved in a motor vehicle accident in New York and a second accident in Ontario commenced a single action in Ontario against multiple defendants, including the New York drivers, an Ontario driver from the second accident, and their Ontario insurer under an underinsured motorist provision.

The New York defendants moved to stay the action for lack of jurisdiction, relying on the presumptive connecting factors identified in Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda.

The court held that where multiple defendants are sued and at least one is domiciled or resident in Ontario, a real and substantial connection exists allowing Ontario courts to assume jurisdiction over the entire dispute.

Splitting the litigation into separate proceedings across jurisdictions would undermine fairness and efficiency.

The motion to stay for lack of jurisdiction was dismissed.

The respondent was injured in a motor vehicle accident and commenced a court action for accident benefits within the limitation period.

Years later, she commenced an arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) for catastrophic impairment benefits.

The FSCO director's delegate ruled that under s. 281.1(1) of the Insurance Act, a claimant must choose a forum within the two-year limitation period and cannot switch forums after it expires.

The Divisional Court found this decision unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, holding that the delegate's interpretation was reasonable and did not place the respondent in an impossible position, as she could still pursue her catastrophic impairment claim within the existing court action.

The representative plaintiff brought a motion for approval of a settlement agreement in a class action arising from the loss of an unencrypted USB key containing the personal information of over 83,000 individuals who received H1N1 vaccines.

The proposed settlement established a claims process for class members who suffered economic harm, with a claim period ending in August 2016, but provided no direct cash payments for anxiety or distress.

Despite objections from some class members regarding the lack of immediate compensation and the length of the claims period, the court approved the settlement as fair and reasonable.

The court noted that the risk of identity theft had largely dissipated over time, making the prospects of success at trial poor, and also approved class counsel fees of $500,000 plus a percentage of future claims.

The Litigation Administrator in a class action sought court approval for its accounts totaling $65,455.25.

The defendants objected, arguing the fees significantly exceeded the initial estimate of $21,500.00.

The court applied the principles for passing a receiver's accounts and found the work was necessary, well done, and the hourly rates were known in advance.

The court approved the accounts up to the end of December 2011, noting that changes in the notice process increased the complexity and expense of the administrator's work.