Melissa Chan

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal more than two years after the denials.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was statute-barred under section 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the denials were clear and unequivocal, triggering the limitation period.

Applying the Manuel factors under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, the Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period due to the length of the delay, lack of bona fide intention to appeal within the period, and prejudice to the respondent.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent requested a preliminary issue hearing to determine whether the applicant was precluded from proceeding with her application because she failed to attend a section 44 insurer's examination.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to attend the examination without a reasonable explanation and that the respondent's notices met the requirements of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that barred her from proceeding with her application for non-earner benefits due to her failure to attend an independent examination.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal violated procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact regarding the sufficiency of the insurer's notice and her reasons for non-attendance.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness and no errors of law or fact in the original decision.

The plaintiff tripped at the entrance of a store, sustaining injuries.

She sued the tenant (Swirls) and the landlord (Anastasios) under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

Both defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no genuine issue for trial.

The court found no breach of the duty of care, noting the entrance was properly constructed and a warning sign was present, which the plaintiff admitted seeing.

The plaintiff's expert opinion on warning sign specifics (capitalization, color) was deemed illogical and moot.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim against all defendants and Swirls' cross-claim against Anastasios were dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the defendants, with the plaintiff bearing the majority.