Michael L. Kennedy

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary decision which found that the 'incurred' provisions of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule do not violate the Human Rights Code.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal erred in its reliance on case law and its discrimination analysis regarding family members providing attendant care.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact that would have changed the outcome, and that the original discrimination analysis correctly applied substantive equality principles.

The applicant, who sustained catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident, challenged the incurred expense provisions of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule under the Human Rights Code.

She argued that limiting attendant care compensation for non-professional family members to their demonstrated economic loss constructively discriminated against her based on family status and disability.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the preliminary issue, finding that the provisions apply universally to all non-professional service providers regardless of their relationship to the insured.

The Tribunal held that the requirement to prove economic loss serves as a threshold to prevent windfalls and does not violate the Code.

The self-represented applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claim for income replacement benefits and dismissing his bad faith claim against the insurer.

The Divisional Court exercised its discretion to hear the application but dismissed it on the merits, finding the LAT's conclusions regarding insufficient medical evidence and procedural choices were reasonable.

The court also held that punitive damages are unavailable on judicial review of LAT decisions.

The application was dismissed with costs of $5,000 awarded to the insurer.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for an income replacement indemnity and a pain and suffering indemnity following a motor vehicle accident in Quebec.

The applicant alleged errors of law and fact, as well as a breach of procedural fairness, under Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to establish any errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome of the original decision, noting the lack of medical evidence to support his claims.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident in Quebec and elected to receive benefits under Quebec's Automobile Insurance Act.

He applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for an income replacement indemnity and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to adduce compelling medical evidence demonstrating that the accident caused him to be unable to hold employment.

As no benefits were payable, the claims for interest and an award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident, including a home modifications assessment, yoga therapy, medical cannabis, and various physical therapies.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal noted the home modification assessment exceeded statutory limits and lacked safety justification, the yoga therapy duplicated approved attendant care, the applicant derived no benefit from medical cannabis, and physical therapies were ineffective for her resolved physical injuries.

The applicant sought $2,200 for an in-home occupational therapy assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefit and scheduled an insurer's examination, which the applicant failed to attend without reasonable explanation.

The Tribunal found the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding under s. 55(1)(2) of the Schedule due to her non-attendance.

In the alternative, the Tribunal found the assessment was not reasonable or necessary, as it was a duplication of previously approved services and the applicant's ongoing physical complaints were not clearly linked to the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $7,585.00 in non-earner benefits paid to the respondent, alleging the respondent wilfully misrepresented material facts when applying for automobile insurance.

The respondent failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent wilfully misrepresented that he owned the insured vehicle, that it was not financed, and that it would not be used for commercial purposes.

However, because the applicant's notice of repayment only specified $2,035.00, the Tribunal limited the repayment order to that amount.

The respondent was ordered to repay $2,035.00 plus interest.

This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the appellant’s action arising from a motor vehicle accident, following a jury’s verdict.

The appellant claimed the trial judge erred by not permitting the jury to deliberate on future income loss and housekeeping expenses, and by refusing expert testimony on these costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury's undisputed finding of no causation rendered the rulings on damages irrelevant.

The self-represented applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, and various treatment plans.

At the hearing, the respondent moved to dismiss the application as abandoned, which the Tribunal denied because the applicant attended.

The applicant requested an adjournment to obtain legal representation and for health reasons, which was also denied due to a lack of supporting evidence and failure to take timely steps.

As the applicant presented no evidence or witnesses to support his substantive claims, the Tribunal found he failed to meet his burden of proof and dismissed the application for benefits.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was awarded $677,143, the court determined the costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs based on reconstructed dockets due to a contingency fee agreement, including costs for a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) hearing regarding statutory accident benefits.

The court awarded $302,974.37 in total costs, allowing only a portion of the LAT hearing fees that constituted trial preparation for the tort action, and deducting certain disbursements as standard office overhead.

This motion concerned the duration of an assignment of future collateral income benefits under s. 267.8(12) of the Insurance Act, following a jury award for income loss.

The defendant insurer sought assignment until the plaintiff reached age 65, while the plaintiff argued for a limitation to 10 years, consistent with the jury's assessment of future income loss.

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, limiting the assignment to the 10-year period determined by the jury, emphasizing the legislative intent to prevent double recovery without under-compensating the injured party.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the plan and required the applicant to attend insurer examinations.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's notices denying the plan and requiring the examinations did not comply with the requirements of sections 38(8) and 44(5) of the Schedule, as they failed to provide meaningful medical and other reasons.

Consequently, the applicant was not required to attend the examinations, and the treatment plan became payable under section 38(11)2 upon proof that the expenses were incurred.

The Tribunal also awarded interest and a 10 percent award under section 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding the respondent's prolonged failure to provide meaningful reasons to be stubborn and unyielding.

The self-represented applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding a lump sum indemnity for non-pecuniary damage.

The applicant alleged that the adjudicator demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias during the hearing and erred in denying a motion to add three new issues.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no evidence to overcome the strong presumption of adjudicative impartiality.

Furthermore, the adjudicator held there was no error of fact or law in denying the motion to add issues, as the applicant had failed to provide the respondent with adequate notice, which would have breached procedural fairness.

The defendant, The Cadillac Fairview Corporation, brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay under Rule 24.01(1)(c) or, alternatively, to impose a timetable.

The plaintiff, Joanne Tsivaras, opposed the dismissal.

The court found that while there was a lengthy delay, it was not sufficiently inordinate or prejudicial to warrant dismissal, allowing the action to proceed.

The court granted the alternative request for a timetable and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants.

A separate hearing was ordered to determine whether the plaintiff or her lawyers (Pace Law Firm) should bear the costs liability, due to concerns about the law firm's conduct regarding file management and communication.

This ruling addresses a defendant's motion for leave to call more than three expert witnesses at a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff opposed, alleging duplication and disadvantage between the defendant's proposed physiatrist and orthopaedic surgeon.

The court granted leave, finding that the proposed five experts, despite some similar observations in their reports, represented distinct specialties and provided unique perspectives necessary for a full adjudication of damages, particularly in a chronic pain case.

The court found no undue duplication or disadvantage to the plaintiff.

Following a 14-day trial where the plaintiff's motor vehicle accident claim was dismissed, the successful defendant sought costs.

The plaintiff argued that his impecuniosity, relying on social assistance, should insulate him from an adverse costs award.

The court rejected this argument, noting the plaintiff had access to after-the-event insurance and that impecuniosity rarely prevents a costs award.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs, reducing the claimed fees and disbursements to an amount reasonable for an unsuccessful litigant to pay, fixing total costs at $158,000.

This supplementary endorsement addresses a challenge to a sealing order granted in the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) proceedings of Laurentian University of Sudbury.

The sealing order covered confidential correspondence between the University and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, which Laurentian University argued contained sensitive information that, if disclosed, could jeopardize its restructuring efforts.

Parties opposing the sealing order contended there was no evidentiary basis for it.

Applying the two-branch test from Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), the court found that the disclosure posed a real and substantial risk to the University's future viability, that the "commercial" interest extended to the broader community, and that no reasonable alternatives existed given ongoing mediation.

Consequently, the court maintained the confidentiality of the exhibits and the existing sealing order.

Laurentian University (LU) sought an Amended and Restated Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) to facilitate its restructuring.

The requested relief included an extension of the stay of proceedings until April 30, 2021, approval of a $25 million Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) facility, an increase in the Administration Charge to $1.25 million, and an increase in the Directors' Charge to $5 million.

LU also sought a stay of pre-filing and post-filing special payments to its defined benefit pension plan and a stay of requests under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

The court granted all requested relief, finding it necessary and reasonable for the continued operation and restructuring of the university.

The sealing order for certain confidential exhibits was maintained pending a supplementary endorsement.

Laurentian University of Sudbury applied for an Initial Order under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA) due to a severe liquidity crisis and insolvency.

The court found that the university, a not-for-profit corporation, qualifies as a debtor company under the CCAA.

The court granted the Initial Order, which included a stay of proceedings, authorization for pre-filing and post-filing payments to students, an Administration Charge, and a Directors' Charge.

The court also granted a sealing order for confidential correspondence with the Ministry to protect the restructuring efforts.