Michael Brown

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that disputes for two plans were statute-barred.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from disputing the orthopaedic and physiotherapy plans because she failed to apply within the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Schedule, and declined to extend the time under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held the applicant failed to establish that she suffered from accident-related chronic pain or psychological impairments warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claim for psychological services was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal drew a negative inference against the applicant for failing to produce relevant medical records as ordered in a Case Conference Report and Order.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to demonstrate that his physical, psychological, or chronic pain injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for disputed treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

The respondent, a mutual fund dealing representative, managed the investments of an elderly, vulnerable client who was diagnosed with terminal cancer.

Shortly before her death, the client executed a will and powers of attorney naming the respondent as her power of attorney for property and personal care, alternate executor, and sole beneficiary of her estate.

The respondent failed to report these appointments and the testamentary gift to his dealer firm, contrary to MFDA Rules and the firm's policies and procedures regarding conflicts of interest.

The Capital Markets Tribunal found that the respondent breached MFDA Rules and his firm's policies, and that his failure to address these conflicts of interest constituted a breach of his statutory obligation under OSC Rule 31-505 to deal with his client fairly, honestly, and in good faith.

Sobeys and Metro applied for disclosure of the identities of certain witnesses in a Competition Act inquiry.

The witnesses subsequently obtained an ex parte order declaring them confidential informants entitled to informer privilege.

Following this declaration, Sobeys and Metro acknowledged that the dismissal of their applications was the inevitable result and submitted a draft order to that effect.

The court agreed that the declaration of confidential informer status effectively determined the applications and dismissed them.

The defendants in a class action sought a pause in proceedings, including the adjournment of a certification motion, pending a Supreme Court of Canada judgment in *Toshiba Corporation v Godfrey*.

The SCC decision was expected to clarify key issues relevant to class certification in price-fixing cases, specifically regarding "umbrella purchasers" and the economic methodology for proving common impact for indirect purchasers.

The court granted the motion, finding that a temporary pause would prevent the need for redoing expert reports and ensure the certification motion was based on the most current state of the law, thereby promoting the expeditious and efficient conduct of the litigation.

The plaintiffs in a proposed class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy regarding packaged bread sought court approval of a third-party litigation funding agreement with Bentham.

The defendants largely did not object, except regarding a clause allowing Bentham to satisfy any security for costs order via an undertaking rather than paying into court.

The court found the funding agreement necessary for access to justice, fair and reasonable to the class, and approved the agreement, including the provision allowing an undertaking for security for costs.

The plaintiffs brought a proposed class action alleging that the defendant financial institutions conspired to fix prices in the foreign exchange (FX) market.

The plaintiffs reached settlement agreements with three groups of defendants (Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, and Citi) totaling $39.25 million.

The plaintiffs moved for an order certifying the action as a class proceeding for settlement purposes against these settling defendants and approving the notice plan.

The court found that the criteria for certification under section 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied and granted the order.

The plaintiffs brought a class action alleging that numerous financial institutions conspired to manipulate the foreign exchange market.

The plaintiffs reached early settlements with three groups of defendants (UBS, BNP, and Bank of America) totaling $15,950,000.

The plaintiffs sought court approval of the settlements and Class Counsel's fee request.

The court approved the settlements, finding them fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class, particularly given the litigation risks and the value of the settling defendants' cooperation.

The court also approved Class Counsel's fee request of $3,987,500 plus disbursements.

The plaintiffs in a certified class proceeding alleging secondary market misrepresentation brought a motion for the production of documents from the defendant SNC, including a Negotiated Resolution Agreement between SNC and the World Bank regarding bribery allegations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the documents were protected by settlement privilege.

The court held that the World Bank's sanctions procedures constituted 'litigation' for the purposes of the privilege, that the communications were intended to be confidential, and that their purpose was to effect a settlement.

The court declined to create a public policy exception to the privilege and found no waiver of the privilege by SNC.

Yamana Gold Inc. brought an application to cease-trade the shareholder rights plan (poison pill) of Meridian Gold Inc. amid a hostile takeover bid.

The Ontario Securities Commission determined that Meridian's board had sufficient time to respond to the bid and assess any competing proposals.

The Commission ordered the poison pill cease-traded effective September 11, 2007, on the condition that Yamana extended its bid to the same date.

The appellant appealed an arbitration decision denying his claim for weekly income benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the arbitrator failed to give proper weight to evidence of a flare-up of back problems and a bulging disc.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator properly weighed the evidence, preferring the uniform opinions of several orthopaedic specialists over the appellant's general practitioner.

The arbitrator's conclusion that the appellant was not substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident work was supported by the evidence.

No appeal expenses were awarded.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

The applicant sought ongoing benefits, claiming substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment in the music production industry due to physical and psychological injuries, including chronic pain syndrome.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant was employed at the time of the accident and suffered soft tissue injuries, the medical evidence from orthopaedic and psychiatric specialists did not support a finding of substantial disability beyond the termination date.

The claim for ongoing weekly income benefits was dismissed, but the applicant was awarded his reasonable arbitration expenses.

The applicants, a husband and wife, claimed statutory accident benefits following three motor vehicle accidents in late 1992.

The insurer terminated benefits and sought repayment, alleging the claims were fraudulent and the symptoms exaggerated.

The arbitrator found the applicants were not credible, noting significant inconsistencies in their evidence regarding their business, prior medical history, and post-accident activities.

Medical and surveillance evidence demonstrated that the husband was malingering and his psychological issues predated the accidents, while the wife had concealed her ongoing college attendance and prior accident history from her doctors.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicants' claims for ongoing weekly income benefits, housekeeping, and visitor expenses, and ordered both applicants to repay all benefits previously received, with interest, pursuant to section 27 of the Schedule.

The applicant, a registered nurse, was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for three years.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing she could return to part-time, less demanding employment.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's residual spinal cord injury, combined with the competitive job market, prevented her from returning to any suitable employment without retraining.

The arbitrator held that the applicant remained continuously prevented from engaging in suitable employment and was entitled to ongoing weekly income benefits.

The insured was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them.

During the arbitration process, the pre-hearing arbitrator ordered the insured to produce documentation regarding his pension income.

The insured refused to comply with the order.

The insurer brought a preliminary motion to summarily dismiss the application.

The arbitrator declined to initiate complex contempt proceedings under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and instead drew an adverse inference against the insured.

The arbitrator deemed the insured to be in receipt of pension income sufficient to reduce his weekly income benefit to zero dollars.