Nigel Grant Gilby

The plaintiff, a person under disability due to a catastrophic brain injury from a motor vehicle accident, sought judicial approval of a proposed tort settlement.

The court reviewed the settlement terms, including a $1.2 million payment from the defendant's insurer and the allocation of funds, considering the significant liability risks for the plaintiff (who failed to stop at a stop sign).

The court approved the settlement, finding it reasonable and excellent given the circumstances, and also approved the plaintiff counsel's reduced contingency fee.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision dismissing his application for attendant care and housekeeping benefits as statute-barred.

The applicant argued the insurer's denial letter was ambiguous, that subsequent payments negated the denial, and raised Charter and discoverability arguments.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding the adjudicator made no significant errors of law.

The denial letter was clear and unequivocal, subsequent payments after the limitation period expired did not revive the claim, and the adjudicator properly declined the Charter argument due to lack of required notice.

The applicant sought attendant care and housekeeping benefits following a 2009 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits in October 2011.

The applicant later sought the benefits at a higher tier after being determined catastrophically impaired, arguing the limitation period did not apply or was negated by subsequent payments.

The Tribunal found the 2011 denial letter was clear and unequivocal, triggering the two-year limitation period under the Insurance Act.

The Tribunal held that discoverability does not apply to the statutory accident benefits scheme and that a subsequent catastrophic impairment determination does not trigger a new limitation period.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The respondent was injured when he tripped over a motorcycle parked on a walkway between trailers at a campsite.

The appellant insurer denied statutory accident benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The application judge found that the temporary parking of the motorcycle constituted an ordinary or well-known use of the vehicle, satisfying the purpose test.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming that parking a vehicle is an ordinary and well-known activity to which vehicles are put, and dismissed the appeal.

An insurer brought an application seeking a declaration that the respondent’s injuries did not arise from an “accident” within the meaning of s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent had tripped over a motorcycle that had been temporarily parked in a pedestrian walkway at a campsite and sustained serious spinal injuries.

Applying the two‑part purpose and causation test from Amos and subsequent Ontario Court of Appeal jurisprudence, the court held that the temporary parking of the motorcycle constituted the use or operation of an automobile.

The motorcycle’s placement in the walkway was found to be the dominant feature causing the injuries and created an unbroken chain of causation.

The court declared that the incident was an “accident” under the SABs.

Following a contested motion in a personal injury action, the successful plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs totaling approximately $23,798.70.

The defendants argued costs should be limited to $4,000 and payable in the cause due to the ongoing dispute over liability.

The court held that Rule 57.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure generally requires costs of a contested motion to be fixed and payable within 30 days unless a different order is more just.

Applying the reasonableness principles governing costs awards and considering duplication of counsel and the moderate complexity of the motion, the court reduced the claimed fees and limited recoverable disbursements.

Costs were fixed at $14,494.49 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable within 30 days.

The applicant, who suffered a spinal cord injury in a snowmobile accident, sought production of the insurer's complete adjuster's file from the date of the Application for Mediation onwards.

The insurer argued that documents created after the mediation application were protected by litigation or solicitor-client privilege.

The arbitrator found that the adjuster's file was reasonably relevant to the ongoing dispute over catastrophic impairment and a special award.

The arbitrator rejected the presumption that the file is automatically privileged after the mediation application date, ordering the insurer to disclose the entire file or provide a specific list of documents with a rationale for any claims of privilege.

The insured sought a declaration that a full and final release was null and void due to lack of capacity, undue influence, and the insurer's failure to comply with statutory notice requirements.

The motion judge dealt with the capacity and undue influence issues on a Rule 21 motion, which the Court of Appeal found was an error as those issues depended on disputed facts.

However, on the cross-appeal, the insurer conceded based on recent jurisprudence that its failure to comply with the statutory requirements rendered the release null and void.

The cross-appeal was allowed and the appeal was dismissed as moot.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them.

She applied for arbitration, seeking ongoing weekly income benefits and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome and remained disabled from her pre-accident job as an in-store demonstrator, entitling her to weekly benefits up to the 156-week mark.

However, the arbitrator concluded that the applicant was not continuously prevented from engaging in any suitable employment thereafter, and dismissed the claim for post-156 week benefits and further medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer brought a motion to dismiss the insured's application for arbitration and for payment of its $1,000 assessment, arguing the insured's conduct constituted an abuse of process.

The insured's counsel had requested an adjournment but subsequently failed to coordinate a new hearing date or respond to numerous communications from the Commission and the insurer over a six-month period.

The arbitrator found that the unexplained failure to respect the Commission's procedures and respond to inquiries constituted an abuse of process.

However, the arbitrator declined to dismiss the arbitration, instead ordering the insured to pay the insurer's $1,000 assessment as a condition of proceeding with a rescheduled hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for accident benefits.

A priority dispute arose between the insurer of the vehicle he was in (State Farm) and his brother's insurer (Progressive).

The arbitrator found the applicant was principally dependent on his brother for financial support, making Progressive liable.

The applicant also claimed weekly income benefits based on a job offer made shortly before the accident.

The arbitrator accepted that a legitimate offer of employment existed but found the applicant's accident-related disability resolved by mid-June 1991.

Weekly income benefits were awarded for that limited period, along with arbitration expenses.