Michael Ditkofsky

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent conceded entitlement but disputed the quantum, arguing the applicant failed to provide sufficient financial disclosure regarding his self-employment income.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to comply with section 33 of the Schedule by not providing requested bank statements and schedules to clarify inconsistencies in his reported income.

Consequently, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's calculation, setting the IRB quantum at $0.00 for the period of August 1 to December 31, 2019, and barred the applicant from proceeding with his claim for the period of January 1 to 18, 2020, until he complied with the disclosure requests.

Claims for interest and costs were 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).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the physical injuries were sprains and strains falling within the MIG, and rejected the applicant's psychological evidence in favour of the respondent's section 44 psychological assessment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The plaintiffs' home flooded, and their insurer's contractor removed goods for storage during repairs.

The plaintiffs alleged that a substantial amount of goods were lost or not returned and sued the insurer in tort and bailment for $226,000.

The defendant insurer moved to compel the plaintiffs to resolve the dispute by appraisal under s. 128 of the Insurance Act and Statutory Condition 11.

The court granted the motion, finding that the missing goods were insured property saved from the flood, and their valuation fell within the mandatory appraisal process.

The action was stayed pending the outcome of the appraisal.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) for nearly four years before the insurer terminated them based on insurer's examinations.

The applicant sought ongoing IRBs, arguing she suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment due to severe physical and psychological impairments, including chronic pain syndrome and PTSD.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met the post-104 week disability test, preferring the evidence of her treating practitioners and experts over the insurer's assessors, who failed to consider her psychological impairments.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay IRBs of $400 per week from the date of termination, plus interest.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for an award under O. Reg. 664, finding the insurer's reliance on its medical assessments was not unreasonable or immoderate.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's slip and fall action.

The plaintiff alleged she slipped on ice at a GO station, and evidence from discovery suggested a leaky eavestrough may have caused ice formation.

The court found that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed because the evidentiary record was incomplete, specifically regarding outstanding undertakings about the eavestrough and incident reports.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The applicant sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal from an order of Swinton J. dismissing her application for judicial review of a decision by Kurke J. refusing leave to appeal an interlocutory order appointing the Public Guardian and Trustee as her litigation guardian.

The applicant, who was self-represented, challenged the appointment on the grounds that it violated her human rights.

The court dismissed the motion for extension of time, finding no merit to the proposed appeal and significant prejudice to the respondent from the delay.

The court held that judicial review does not lie against a Superior Court judge's refusal of leave to appeal, and therefore no appeal lies to the Court of Appeal.

The applicant law firm sought a declaration of entitlement to $32,100 held in trust by the respondent law firm, representing unpaid legal fees for services provided to a former client.

The respondent estate argued the claim was statute-barred and the applicant lacked standing.

The court found the respondent law firm's undertaking to protect the account was binding on the estate and stopped the limitation period from running.

The court declared the applicant entitled to payment subject to an assessment of the account, finding special circumstances warranted an extension of the statutory time limit for assessment due to the lack of particularity in the account and mutual delay.