Matthew MacIsaac

The applicant, who has pre-existing non-verbal autism, sought attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident, alleging the accident caused increased violent and unpredictable behaviour.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the incurred expenses were not for services outlined in the approved Form 1 and that the applicant failed to prove the accident caused the behavioural changes.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's occupational therapy assessment, which was supported by contemporaneous medical and school records showing significant pre-existing behavioural issues, over the applicant's assessment.

The plaintiff brought an action against the City for injuries sustained after slipping and falling on a snow-covered tree root on private property adjacent to a City sidewalk.

The plaintiff had stepped off the plowed sidewalk to avoid people waiting at a bus stop.

The City moved for summary judgment on the grounds that the fall occurred on private property, the claim was barred by the 10-day notice requirement under the Municipal Act, and there was no gross negligence.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide a reasonable excuse for the late notice and that the City had met its duty of care by plowing the sidewalk.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after allegedly falling while entering her parked motor vehicle.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the incident was a slip and fall on ice and not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the two-part purpose and causation test, finding that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The Tribunal concluded that the slip and fall on ice was an intervening act and the dominant feature of the incident, meaning the use or operation of the vehicle did not directly cause the injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Boswell J. dated September 1, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties in the amount of $1,500.

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

The respondent denied certain medical benefits and assessment costs on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions, including neck and back pain, ankylosing spondylitis, and chronic pain, prevented maximal medical recovery under the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing conditions were not exacerbated by the accident and did not prevent maximal medical recovery.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, which had already been exhausted.

The claims for additional benefits and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to discovery questions regarding the defendants' homeowner's insurance policy and future investigations/surveillance.

The court found that questions about the homeowner's policy were not relevant as the plaintiff failed to demonstrate it would respond to auto claims or extend liability coverage via an umbrella policy, and the insurer had already complied with disclosure obligations under the Insurance Act.

Questions regarding future investigations/surveillance were also deemed improper as courts do not order anticipatory undertakings for hypothetical future breaches of discovery obligations.

The motion was largely dismissed, with costs divided due to some prior resolved issues.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action sought an extension of time and leave to appeal a motion judge's order requiring her to pay the costs charged by third-party record holders to produce relevant documents.

The court granted the extension of time, finding no prejudice to the defendant and that the justice of the case warranted it.

The court also granted leave to appeal, noting conflicting lines of authority on whether a plaintiff or a defendant seeking production must pay for third-party records, and concluded that an appellate decision was desirable to clarify the law.

In a motor vehicle chain-reaction collision case, the moving defendants in the lead vehicle sought summary judgment dismissing the action and a co-defendants' cross-claim against them.

The responding defendants argued the motion was premature because the police file had not yet been produced and further discovery remained outstanding.

Applying the summary judgment approach in Hryniak, the court held the record was sufficiently developed, the responding defendants had ample time to investigate, and there was no air of reality to the suggestion that further evidence would establish negligence by the lead vehicle.

The court further relied on the settled presumption that the striking rear vehicle is generally at fault in a rear-end collision and dismissed the action and cross-claim against the moving defendants.

The third party contractor sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment against the defendant municipality's third party claim.

The underlying action involved a plaintiff who slipped and fell on an icy sidewalk.

The motions judge had dismissed the summary judgment motion on the basis that it would be unfair to require the defendant to prove the plaintiff's case against the third party without the plaintiff's participation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision and concluding that the motions judge properly applied the summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin.

Following an unsuccessful summary judgment motion brought by a third party in a slip-and-fall action, the court determined the appropriate costs award payable to the defendant municipality.

The motion had concerned contractual interpretation, contribution and indemnity between a municipality and its snow removal contractor, and the applicable negligence standard.

The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate due to the absence of the plaintiff’s evidence and the need to determine fault at trial.

Applying section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed what was fair and reasonable in light of the parties’ competing cost submissions.

Costs were fixed at a midpoint between the amounts proposed by the parties.

A snow removal contractor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a third party claim brought by a municipality in a slip-and-fall action.

The municipality alleged the contractor was responsible for contribution and indemnity if the plaintiff established negligence regarding icy sidewalk conditions.

The court held that determining whether negligent snow and ice removal caused the injury required evidence from the plaintiff and could not be decided in the contractor’s summary judgment motion.

Because third party liability could depend on findings made at trial in the main action, a genuine issue requiring a trial remained.

The motion for summary judgment was therefore dismissed.

The appellants successfully sued the respondents for damages from a motor vehicle accident.

Prior to trial, the respondents' insurer twice refused the appellants' requests to participate in mandatory mediation under the Insurance Act, claiming the injuries did not meet the statutory threshold.

The trial judge awarded partial indemnity costs, finding the insurer's refusal was a genuine available position.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that participating in mediation is a mandatory statutory obligation with no exceptions.

The Court increased the trial costs award by $40,000 as a remedial penalty for the insurer's failure to mediate.