Michael White

The applicant sought attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits and scheduled an insurer's examination with an otolaryngologist under section 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant did not attend the examination, arguing the respondent's notices were deficient.

On a preliminary issue, the Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide meaningful medical and other reasons for the examination as required by section 44(5)(a).

The boilerplate reasons provided were insufficient.

Consequently, the applicant was not held in non-compliance and his claim was not statute-barred under section 55(1)2.

The applicant sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) beyond the 104-week mark following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the accident caused the applicant's impairments, she failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's independent medical examinations and functional evaluations over the applicant's subjective complaints and expert evidence, noting credibility issues and the employer's willingness to accommodate her.

The application for IRBs, interest, and a special award was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

The applicant filed a second request for reconsideration regarding an amended decision that confirmed the quantum of a weekly income replacement benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the second request, noting that the original request had already been considered and the decision amended, and advised the applicant to pursue judicial review or an appeal if they remained in disagreement.

The appellant appealed a partial summary judgment granted by the motion judge in a rear-end motor vehicle collision case that occurred on an icy road during freezing rain.

The appellant argued that the motion judge applied the wrong test and failed to address the alleged contributory negligence of the respondent, contending that the respondent should not have stopped on the highway.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error and confirming that the motion judge correctly applied the summary judgment test.

The court upheld the finding that the respondent did not act negligently in stopping her vehicle given the road conditions and visibility issues.

The respondent insurer filed a request for reconsideration of a preliminary decision that allowed the applicant insured to proceed with her application for income replacement benefits despite failing to attend seven scheduled insurer examinations.

The insurer argued the applicant should be completely barred from proceeding due to prejudice.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no error of law or fact in the preliminary decision.

The Tribunal upheld the original order requiring the applicant to attend rescheduled insurer examinations as a condition of proceeding with her application, noting the applicant had provided reasonable explanations for missing some of the appointments.

Following a successful summary judgment motion on liability, the plaintiff sought costs for both the motion and the liability portion of the action.

The defendant opposed, arguing costs should be proportionate to future damages and seeking a credit for costs received from a third-party settlement.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments, finding no reason to defer costs and that the third-party settlement was irrelevant to the costs between the main parties.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis for the action's liability portion and a substantial indemnity basis for the motion, totaling $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellants sued the respondent for damages after allegedly finding a mouldy piece of chicken in a box of cereal.

The parties reached a settlement to dismiss the action without costs, but the appellants later attempted to resile from the agreement, claiming it was accepted in haste and under stress.

The motion judge enforced the settlement against the adult appellants.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the appellants failed to establish grounds, such as mistake or significant compromise, to justify setting aside the settlement.

Former dental partners disputed the validity of a written partnership agreement and the accounting following dissolution of their practice.

The plaintiffs argued that an oral agreement replaced the written termination provisions and that the written profit‑sharing formula was incorrect.

The court held the detailed written 2004 partnership agreement was clear and binding and rejected the alleged oral termination agreement as an incomplete “contract to make a contract.” The court ordered an accounting under the written agreement and found the defendant had been underpaid partnership profits due to improper treatment of an associate’s expense.

The defendant was awarded $119,056 and the limitation period did not bar the claim because discoverability arose only after the accounting issue was uncovered.

Two bartenders filed human rights applications against their employer, a veterans' club, and its directing officers.

The first applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability and reprisal after she took a medical leave for depression and diabetes.

The Tribunal found the respondents discriminated against her by demoting her, demanding she be symptom-free to return to work, publicly posting her confidential medical information, and laying her off.

The respondents also engaged in reprisal by demanding a meeting about unsubstantiated complaints and filing a false police report against her after she initiated human rights proceedings.

The second applicant alleged discrimination on the basis of disability, sex (pregnancy), and association.

The Tribunal found the respondents failed to accommodate her back injury, reduced her hours due to her pregnancy, and suspended her and filed a false police report against her because of her association with the first applicant.

The Tribunal awarded significant monetary compensation for lost income and injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, and ordered public interest remedies including human rights training and the implementation of a human rights policy.

The deceased was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and died several months later.

His estate commenced an action more than two years after the accident but within two years of his death.

The motion judge dismissed the action as statute-barred.

On appeal, the estate argued that the limitation period should run from the date of death under the Trustee Act and the Insurance Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the death of the injured party does not create a new cause of action and the limitation period runs from the date of the accident.