Navid Ghahraei

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's action for delay, the successful defendants sought costs.

The defendants requested a modest $5,000 each, despite incurring over $100,000 each in legal expenses over a decade of unproductive litigation.

The self-represented plaintiff opposed the costs, focusing on her medical accommodations and stating she could not afford the requested amount.

The court exercised its discretion under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, reducing the requested amount and ordering the plaintiff to pay $3,500 to each of the four defendants, totaling $14,000.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay.

The plaintiff, Alma Cherry, requested an adjournment due to health issues and the volume of materials recently served on her.

The court granted the adjournment, scheduling the motion for December 1, 2025, and directed the defendants not to serve any further materials on Ms. Cherry before the motion.

The court clarified that related proceedings involving Ms. Cherry and Novex Insurance Company would not affect the timing of the present motion.

The plaintiff, Alma Cherry, brought a motion to dismiss third-party claims for delay.

The motion, previously adjourned at her request, was scheduled peremptorily for April 8, 2025.

On the hearing date, Cherry again sought an adjournment, citing complaints about opposing counsel and requests for further discovery materials.

The court authorized her to obtain an audio recording of the discovery, provided all counsel receive a copy before it is used in court.

The court explained that further requests regarding discovery refusals or document production must be brought by motion before the Associate Justices.

The court set deadlines for all parties regarding upcoming motions and adjourned Cherry’s motion to April 13, 2026, making clear that this would not affect the defendants’ right to proceed with their own motions.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for physiotherapy.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including insurer's examinations and x-rays, consistently indicated the injuries were soft-tissue in nature and fell within the MIG.

The applicant failed to demonstrate that his physical or psychological impairments warranted treatment beyond the MIG.

The application was dismissed.