Matthew K. Dale

The self-represented applicant failed to serve and file his application record and factum by the deadline set in a prior case management direction.

Despite being warned that his attempt to seek leave to appeal did not stay the court's directions and being offered a short extension, the applicant defied the court's orders and claimed the court had forfeited jurisdiction due to bias.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review due to the applicant's repeated failure to follow case management directions and his ungovernable conduct.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming expenses for dog walking services and a laptop for an online college course.

The Tribunal found that dog walking services were replacement services for the dog's benefit rather than essential rehabilitation for the applicant, and thus not compensable under s. 16(3)(l).

The Tribunal also denied the claim for the laptop and course due to insufficient details in the treatment plan to assess reasonableness and necessity.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant had been laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic prior to the accident and had only worked 22 weeks in the 52 weeks preceding the accident, falling short of the 26-week statutory requirement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not 'employed' at the time of the accident within the meaning of section 5(1) of the Schedule, as intent to return to work does not satisfy the requirement of receiving wages for services.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The application for IRBs and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after an incident where he was struck in the face with a walking stick by a pedestrian while seated in his vehicle.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation test, finding that while the incident arose out of the ordinary use of a vehicle, the assault was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought post-104-week income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent initially approved the benefits but denied them four days later based on the same Insurer's Examination reports.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial was a correction of the initial approval and that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The applicant's expert reports were given little weight due to a lack of objective testing and failure to outline functional limitations.

The claim for income replacement benefits and interest was dismissed.

However, the Tribunal awarded the applicant $500 in costs because the respondent breached a case conference report and order by producing documents 137 days late, which interfered with the efficiency of the dispute resolution process.

The moving parties brought motions for leave to appeal an order dated October 31, 2023.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motions for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The plaintiff pedestrian was struck by a left-turning pickup truck while crossing an intersection at night.

The plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury.

The plaintiff sued the driver, the municipality, and the municipality's electrical contractor, alleging the intersection was in a state of non-repair due to missing streetlights on the median.

The court found the driver 100% liable for failing to ensure the turn could be made safely.

The claims against the municipality and contractor were dismissed, as the intersection had sufficient illumination from other sources and was deemed in a state of repair under the Minimum Maintenance Standards.

Damages of approximately $2 million were awarded against the driver.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $1,000 to the Homewood defendants and $1,000 to the defendant doctor.

The defendant moved for an order compelling the plaintiff, who resides in British Columbia, to post security for costs in an action alleging historical abuse.

The plaintiff opposed the motion on the basis of impecuniosity.

The court found that the plaintiff had made full and frank disclosure of her financial circumstances, establishing that she was impecunious.

The court also found that the plaintiff's claim, which would largely turn on credibility, was not plainly devoid of merit.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed, with costs of $5,000 awarded to the plaintiff.

The applicant was struck by a pickup truck while riding his bicycle, sustaining severe injuries to his left heel and ankle.

He applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment, which the insurer denied.

At arbitration, the arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that his need for two crutches and a short leg brace resulted in a 55% Whole Person Impairment under the AMA Guides.

Furthermore, the arbitrator accepted that the applicant's chronic pain and depression resulted in a Class 4 marked impairment in at least one area of functioning.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under both paragraphs 2(1.2)(f) and (g) of the Schedule.