Mikolaj T. Grodzki

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a special award under Regulation 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were based on subjective complaints and her evidence was unreliable.

The Tribunal found the applicant credible and determined she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a gas bar attendant, entitling her to pre-104 week IRBs.

However, the Tribunal dismissed her claim for post-104 week IRBs, finding she failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, as she had successfully worked part-time jobs post-accident and failed to prove her subsequent surgeries were accident-related.

The claim for a Regulation 664 award was also dismissed, as the insurer's delay in obtaining addendum reports was not unreasonable given the applicant's delay in providing requested documents.

The respondents were injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an employee of the appellant who was driving his personal vehicle to a remote job site.

The employee had taken a short detour for coffee when the collision occurred.

The motion judge granted summary judgment finding the employer vicariously liable under the first branch of the Salmond test, as the travel and detour were authorized acts within the course of employment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the employer's appeal, upholding the finding that the employee was authorized to drive to the job site and take a short break, making the employer vicariously liable.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials in Ottawa caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to compel the injured plaintiff to attend an independent medical examination (IME) without the presence of a support person.

The court granted both motions, finding that the pandemic-related delay justified striking the jury notice to ensure timely access to justice, and that the defendants were entitled to an IME without third-party interference absent medical evidence requiring a support person.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after injuring his back while changing his vehicle's winter tires to summer tires in his driveway.

The respondent insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal held that performing planned seasonal maintenance, such as changing tires on a parked and disabled vehicle, does not constitute the 'use or operation' of an automobile.

The Tribunal found that it was not within the reasonable expectations of the insured to have coverage while performing such maintenance.

The preliminary issue was resolved in favour of the respondent.

The defendants brought a motion seeking costs thrown away on a substantial indemnity basis for a late trial adjournment and an order suspending pre-judgment interest.

The trial was adjourned due to the plaintiff's counsel's failure to comply with timetable orders, including providing proper witness statements and an ever-changing witness list, which rendered the original four-week trial estimate unrealistic.

The court found the plaintiff and his counsel responsible for the adjournment, awarded the defendants $100,000 in costs thrown away on a partial indemnity basis, and suspended pre-judgment interest from the original trial date until the new trial date.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking approval of an infant settlement in a motor vehicle accident case.

The requested relief included dispensing with service of supporting affidavits, approval of a contingency fee retainer agreement (CFRA) for the infant plaintiffs, and approval of the settlement dismissing the infant claims without costs.

The court granted the order to dispense with service of affidavits and approved the infant settlement, finding it reasonable and in the infants' best interests.

However, the court declined to approve the CFRA, questioning its validity as it was entered into after the settlement had been reached.

The balance of the action was dismissed without costs.