Oleh P. Vereshchak

The court granted default judgment in favour of Lorenzo Orsetto and Ricardo Bigioni against 2416022 Ontario Ltd. and John Bigioni, finding that John’s conduct as an officer and director was oppressive and breached the reasonable expectations of the complainants under the Business Corporations Act.

The court ordered John’s removal as officer and director, the sale of his shares, and provided for judgment for any shortfall.

The decision reviews the principles of default judgment and oppression remedies, and applies them to the facts of the case.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2007 and sought payment for a physical therapy treatment plan proposed in 2014.

The insurer denied the claim based on an insurer's examination which concluded that the applicant had already received appropriate facility-based treatment and required no further treatment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's medical evidence was outdated and insufficient to prove that the proposed treatment was reasonable and necessary seven years post-accident.

The application for the medical benefit was dismissed.

The appellant, an Ontario lawyer, appealed the dismissal of his application for a declaration that his professional liability insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify him in an action brought by a former client.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that the professional services giving rise to the claim were performed in St. Kitts and related to the laws of St. Kitts and Nevis.

As such, the services fell outside the coverage of the insurer's policy, which was limited to professional services with respect to the laws of Canada.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received no-fault weekly income benefits from the insurer, as well as disability income benefits from a third-party group policy.

The third-party insurer deducted income tax at source and remitted the net amount to the applicant.

The insurer deducted the gross amount of the disability benefits when calculating the applicant's no-fault benefits.

The applicant disputed this, arguing only the net amount should be deducted.

The arbitrator held that the gross amount of the disability benefits is a payment 'available to the insured person' under Section 12(4)(b)(i) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule and is therefore deductible in full.