Michael Raymond Switzer

The plaintiff was struck from behind by an unidentified vehicle in a Starbucks drive-through.

Unaware she had suffered a concussion, she did not obtain the other driver's information before he left.

She reported the accident to her broker the next day but did not notify police within 24 hours or provide written notice to her insurer within 30 days.

In a special case trial, the court held the plaintiff could not have ascertained the driver's identity with reasonable due diligence due to her injuries.

The court found no irreparable prejudice to the insurer from the delayed reporting and granted relief from forfeiture.

The court also found sufficient corroborating evidence of the unidentified vehicle's involvement.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a neuropsychological assessment and for leave to serve the resulting expert report after the deadline set by Rule 53.03.

The defendant's new counsel argued the delay was due to assuming carriage of the file late in the litigation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no reasonable explanation for the two-year delay by the defendant's previous counsel in arranging the assessment.

The court also noted that allowing a late report on the eve of trial would cause significant prejudice to the plaintiff and likely result in a lengthy trial adjournment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal had previously determined in a 2024 decision that the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant filed a second application based on new medical reports.

The respondent raised the preliminary issue of res judicata.

The Tribunal found that the three preconditions for res judicata were met.

Furthermore, the Tribunal declined to waive the doctrine, finding that the new medical reports did not constitute fresh evidence that would conclusively impeach the original results, as they relied on the applicant's inaccurate self-reporting of her pre-accident condition.

The application was dismissed.

The court determined whether costs should be awarded against the main plaintiff, Hassan Salem, for an unproductive pre-trial conference and the adjournment of a six-week trial.

Salem failed to attend the fourth pre-trial conference scheduled for April 3, 2025, and his counsel was also absent due to a scheduling conflict.

Salem had terminated his lawyer's services shortly before trial.

The court found that the fourth pre-trial conference was unproductive and awarded immediate costs.

The court also assessed costs thrown away at twenty percent of the costs and disbursements incurred by the defendant and co-plaintiff, to be paid upon trial decision or full resolution of the matter.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans for physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and dental services, as well as an ambulance fee, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, relying on insurer examination reports indicating the applicant was independent in daily activities.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to prove the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as the applicant did not provide the actual plans or compelling evidence to counter the respondent's medical assessments.

Claims for the ambulance fee, interest, and a special award were similarly dismissed.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate scale and quantum of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiff Jordan’s claim for fire loss under an insurance policy.

The court rejected the defendants’ request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that the circumstances did not justify such an award.

The court fixed costs at $10,000 for each defendant, inclusive of disbursements, emphasizing proportionality and the absence of scandalous or outrageous conduct.

The court considered the apportionment of costs between two insurers, Wawanesa and Aviva, following the settlement of two related actions arising from a serious motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff, Stephane Brazeau, sought to recover all costs and disbursements from Wawanesa, the statutory third party, after both actions settled.

The court held that costs should be apportioned equally (50-50) between Wawanesa and Aviva, and that Wawanesa was not responsible for costs related to the Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) claim, as it had no control over those proceedings and did not benefit from the SABs settlement.

The plaintiffs, John Jordan and William Nielson, sought damages from Commonwell Mutual Insurance Group and Finnegan Insurance Brokers Ltd. regarding a policy of insurance on a hunting camp and outbuildings destroyed by fire in 2018.

The plaintiffs alleged that Finnegan failed in its duty to ensure adequate insurance coverage and acted in bad faith, and that Commonwell improperly closed the file while issues remained.

The defendants moved for non-suit, arguing that replacement insurance was not available for this type of property and that the plaintiffs had been referred to arbitration.

The court granted the summary judgment motions, dismissing the claims against both defendants, finding no credible evidence to support the plaintiffs’ claims and that the settlement cheque issued was appropriate.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she was unable to work as a self-employed aesthetician.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits based on section 44 assessments and sought repayment of a $557.50 overpayment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence proving a substantial or complete inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The applicant's claim for IRBs, interest, and a special award was dismissed.

The respondent's request for repayment was granted, as the overpayment was an error and timely notice was provided.

This decision concerns the entitlement to the former home of Yvette Poirier and certain funds allegedly misappropriated from her bank account by her late son, Paul Poirier.

The applicant, Lyse Scharfe (Yvette’s daughter and attorney for property and personal care), sought to set aside a 2016 conveyance of the property to Paul, arguing Yvette lacked capacity and was subject to undue influence.

The court found that Yvette Poirier lacked capacity at the time of the transfer and that the presumption of undue influence was not rebutted.

The 2016 conveyance was set aside, and the property was to be re-vested in the joint names of Yvette Poirier and Paul’s estate.

The court also addressed the improper registration of a mortgage on the property by respondent’s counsel.

The applicant was injured when she tripped and fell while navigating around a parked truck that was overhanging the sidewalk.

She applied for statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied.

At a preliminary issue hearing, the Tribunal found that the incident met the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Schedule, as the use or operation of the parked vehicle was a direct cause of her injuries.

However, the Tribunal held that the applicant was barred from proceeding with her claim because she failed to notify the insurer of the accident within seven days, as required by section 32(1).

The applicant's explanation that she was unaware she was involved in a motor vehicle accident until advised by her lawyer nearly a year later was not accepted as a reasonable explanation, particularly given she already had legal representation for a prior slip and fall.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a decision that barred her from proceeding with her claim due to non-compliance with her obligation to attend insurer's examinations.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in finding she had returned to Canada and requested an order regarding travel expenses.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact, and noting that the applicant's submissions regarding her return to Canada were not evidence and could have been raised at the initial hearing.

The request for an order on travel expenses was also dismissed as it was not an issue in the preliminary hearing.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental or behavioural impairments) following a minor motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that the accident was a necessary cause of her impairments, noting an extensive pre-accident medical history of physical and psychological disability that the applicant had minimized.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, concluding that the applicant did not suffer a Class 4 marked impairment in three or more areas of functioning.

The application was dismissed.

Two personal injury actions, arising from a 2014 collision, were commenced in North Bay.

The court, concerned about judicial resource shortages and the impact of R. v. Jordan timelines on civil matters, initiated discussions about transferring the actions to Ottawa, where the accident occurred.

The plaintiffs consented to the transfer, but the defendant opposed, arguing that a formal motion was required and that the transfer would be unfair given a prior decision to strike a jury notice to expedite the trial in North Bay.

The court, exercising its discretion under Rule 2.03 to dispense with the formal motion requirement, ordered the transfer, emphasizing that the interest of justice, particularly judicial availability in Ottawa, outweighed the defendant's objections to ensure the timely disposition of these long-standing cases.

The defendant insurer, Aviva, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for unidentified motorist coverage.

Aviva argued that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable due diligence to identify the at-fault driver and did not comply with statutory notice requirements.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the plaintiff's capacity to gather information immediately after the collision due to head trauma and whether equitable relief from forfeiture should be granted for the notice breaches.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments allegedly resulting from her daughter's motor vehicle accident.

The insurer requested insurer's examinations (IEs) under section 44 of the Schedule to determine entitlement.

The applicant, who had moved to Morocco, failed to attend the scheduled IEs and proposed alternative arrangements not permitted by the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant non-compliant with her obligation to attend the IEs and held that she is barred from proceeding with her application pursuant to section 55 of the Schedule.

This employment law appeal addressed three issues: mitigation of damages, the awarding of aggravated damages, and the joint and several liability of common employers.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in finding the respondent unable to mitigate due to physical incapacity, awarding aggravated damages, and holding them jointly and severally liable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the respondent was physically unable to mitigate, that aggravated damages were warranted due to the employer's bad faith conduct during termination, and that both entities were common employers, thus jointly and severally liable.

The plaintiff sued two physicians for medical malpractice, alleging they negligently failed to diagnose and treat him for Lyme disease following a suspected tick bite in April 2010.

The emergency room physician diagnosed cellulitis and prescribed antibiotics, while the family physician later treated the plaintiff for various ongoing symptoms but did not diagnose Lyme disease.

The court found that neither physician breached the standard of care.

Furthermore, the court concluded the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he was bitten by a tick or that he actually contracted Lyme disease.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiffs in the main action brought a motion to strike a jury notice in consolidated motor vehicle accident trials, arguing that the estimated 8-10 week trial duration could not be accommodated within the court's allotted 6-week jury trial period due to limited judicial resources and pandemic-related backlogs.

The defendants opposed, asserting the motion was premature.

The court granted leave to bring the motion, finding the delay justified by the pandemic's impact and judicial resource constraints.

The motion to strike the jury notice was granted, converting the main action to a judge-alone trial, emphasizing the necessity of ensuring timely justice given the case's age and the unlikelihood of completing a jury trial within the available time.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to submit a completed disability certificate (OCF-3) prior to the end of the claimed entitlement period, contrary to s. 36(2) of the Schedule.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she did not provide specific arguments or references to the evidence connecting her impairments to her pre- and post-accident activities.