Maurice Benzaquen

The Applicants sought declarations that a Ditch Inlet Manhole (DIMH) on their property was owned by the City of Vaughan, constituted a public utility, and requested an easement and compensation for expropriation under the Expropriations Act.

The City contended the DIMH was private property, citing a subdivision agreement and a by-law that explicitly stated the City would not assume ownership of private drainage structures.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the DIMH was a private storm drainage structure owned by the Applicants, and that the term "rear lot catch basin" in the subdivision agreement encompassed DIMHs.

The court also stated it lacked jurisdiction to mandate expropriation or assumption of responsibility by the City.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, as well as the cost of several assessments, following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the disputed treatment plans and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's medical assessors, who reviewed the applicant's complete medical records and found that further facility-based treatment would not lead to significant improvements and that the applicant's psychological issues were largely pre-existing or subclinical.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied funding for two physiotherapy treatment plans.

The applicant argued he sustained a concussion and chronic pain, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence, including hospital records and employment records, did not support a non-minor injury diagnosis.

The applicant was held to the MIG limit, which was already exhausted, and his claims for the treatment plans, an award, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for physiotherapy, a chronic pain assessment, assistive devices, and psychological services.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, chronic pain assessment, and psychological services, finding the applicant's evidence inconsistent and relying on surveillance showing her performing activities she claimed she could not do.

The Tribunal granted the treatment plan for assistive devices, as both parties' occupational therapists recommended them.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

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

The insurer denied claims for physiotherapy and assessments, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain, psychological impairment, and a pre-existing condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his chronic pain adversely affected his well-being, applying the AMA Guides criteria.

The Tribunal also gave little weight to the applicant's psychological evidence and found no documented pre-existing condition preventing maximal recovery.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans and income replacement benefits, asserting the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he sustained a psychological impairment or chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which was consistent with the family physician's records showing no psychological complaints and a return to full-time work.

The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed because the applicant failed to submit a completed Disability Certificate prior to the period claimed.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after tripping and falling on a raised ledge near a displayed vehicle at an auto show.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held a preliminary issue hearing and found that the applicant's injuries did not arise out of the ordinary use or operation of an automobile.

The Tribunal concluded the purpose test was not met, as the display of a vehicle at an auto show does not constitute ordinary use or operation, and dismissed the application.

The moving party (respondent in the main proceeding) sought an adjournment of his own motion because the counsel working on the file had left the firm and new counsel was not ready.

The court granted the adjournment on terms, setting a peremptory return date and prohibiting the filing of further materials other than authorities.

The court awarded the responding party $4,500 in costs thrown away, payable within 30 days, failing which the responding party could move to dismiss the motion.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical benefits and costs of examinations from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving that his physical or psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the costs of examinations, finding them not reasonable and necessary, and denied the claim for a section 10 award.

The applicant's representatives brought a motion to withdraw as solicitors of record in a statutory accident benefits dispute.

The representatives demonstrated that they had made numerous unsuccessful attempts to contact the applicant and had been unable to obtain instructions for the upcoming preliminary issue hearing.

The arbitrator found that there had been a complete breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship and granted the motion to withdraw.

The applicant was struck by a bus and sought statutory accident benefits from the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the applicant's claims for non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits, finding she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and failed to prove her mother sustained an economic loss.

However, the Tribunal approved treatment plans for physiotherapy and chiropractic care as reasonable and necessary to treat ongoing pain.

The Tribunal also ordered the TTC to pay a $1,000 award under O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer breached its duty of good faith by unreasonably delaying benefits and failing to maintain transparent internal records.

The applicants brought a motion to remove the insurer's counsel of record, arguing that a lawyer at the firm participated in preparing the report to the insurer's denial committee and acted as a claims investigator, thereby creating a conflict of interest and making the lawyer a potential witness.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding insufficient evidence of a conflict of interest or personal financial benefit.

The arbitrator held that the lawyer's actions were consistent with the duties of a solicitor in a typical accident benefits matter and that solicitor-client privilege protected the communications.

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

The adjudicator found the applicant's testimony credible regarding the heavy physical demands of his pre-accident employment as a drywaller and steel framer.

Relying on the applicant's evidence and his treating chronic pain specialist, the adjudicator concluded the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment due to pain, and awarded IRBs.

However, the claims for medical benefits and the cost of an examination were dismissed because the applicant failed to submit the disputed treatment plans into evidence.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed as the insurer reasonably relied on its own medical experts.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits from his insurer.

The insurer denied the benefits based on its assessors' reports.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's testimony regarding his heavy physical labour as a drywaller and his debilitating pain to be credible, supported by his treating chronic pain specialist and the insurer's own kinesiologist.

The Tribunal awarded IRBs of $400 per week.

However, the claims for medical benefits and examination costs were dismissed because the applicant failed to enter the disputed treatment plans into evidence.

The Tribunal declined to award costs or a special award, finding the insurer did not act in bad faith.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which the insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The arbitrator found that the applicant's injuries, which included chronic pain, a head injury resulting in hearing impairment, and psychological impairments, took him outside the MIG.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay for the disputed medical benefits and the costs of various examinations.

Although the applicant established an entitlement to attendant care benefits, the claim was dismissed because the quantum could not be proven under section 19(3)4 of the Schedule.

The arbitrator also ordered the insurer to pay a $5,000 special award for unreasonably delaying and withholding benefits, noting the insurer's failure to properly investigate the applicant's head injury and chronic pain.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits from the Insurer.

The Insurer denied a $2,460.00 physiatry assessment, arguing the Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Arbitrator found the assessment was reasonable and necessary, as the Applicant had significant pre-existing physical and psychological conditions, including PTSD, that prevented him from achieving maximum recovery within the MIG.

The Arbitrator ordered the Insurer to pay for the assessment and interest, but declined to order a special award, finding the Insurer's denial was not imprudent, stubborn, or inflexible given the circumstances.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave under Rule 39.02(2) to rely on a late expert engineering report in response to a pending summary judgment motion brought by the defendant property owners.

The defendants opposed the admission of the report, arguing it was produced after cross-examinations were completed and years after the incident.

The court granted leave, finding the report relevant, responsive to issues raised in cross-examination, and that its admission would not cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay $5,000 in costs on a set-off basis for costs thrown away.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to set aside a jury verdict on liability or, alternatively, for a new trial on liability, after the jury found no negligence on the part of either driver involved in an accident.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that there was an evidentiary foundation for the jury's verdict and that the verdict was not plainly unreasonable or lacking a foundation in law.

The jury was entitled to conclude that neither party had met their burden of proof.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits that were denied by the respondent insurer on the basis that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries fell outside the MIG due to overwhelming evidence of a psychological impairment resulting from the accident.

Consequently, the Tribunal approved treatment and assessment plans for a physiatrist assessment, a neurological assessment, a psychological assessment, and psychological counselling sessions.

However, the Tribunal denied claims for attendant care benefits, an attendant care assessment, assistive devices, and further chiropractic treatments, finding that the applicant was largely independent in his activities of daily living and that facility-based physical therapy was no longer reasonable and necessary.

In a negligence action arising from a slip and fall accident in a parking lot, the defendants brought a motion concerning refusals and undertakings during examinations for discovery.

The court considered disputes relating to disclosure of financial records relevant to the plaintiffs’ claim for economic loss and questions regarding prior complaints about ice and snow conditions at the premises.

The court held that the requested financial information and access to computer systems were relevant to assessing the economic loss claim and ordered that experts for both parties attend the plaintiff’s business premises to retrieve the necessary data.

The court also ruled that questions about prior complaints regarding icy conditions were relevant to the negligence allegations.

The balance of the motion was adjourned without a date and no costs were ordered for the portion argued.