Pamela L. Blaikie

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' personal injury action on summary judgment, the court determined the costs payable.

The defendants sought costs from the plaintiffs and argued the plaintiffs should also be liable for the costs of the third parties, whom the defendants had joined.

The court applied the general rule that an unsuccessful plaintiff is not responsible for the costs of third parties they did not sue, finding no exceptional circumstances to depart from this rule.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants $44,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the defendants were ordered to pay the full costs claimed by the various third parties, totaling over $133,000.

The insurer brought a motion to adjourn the arbitration hearing to consolidate it with two other claims arising from the same alleged motor vehicle accident, which the insurer now claimed was staged.

The applicant opposed the adjournment, arguing prejudice due to the insurer's delay in raising the misrepresentation issue.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment sine die to allow for consolidation, noting the risk of diverging findings if the matters were heard separately.

To address the prejudice to the applicant caused by the late adjournment request, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay $5,000 in expenses thrown away, prohibited the filing of further evidence without leave, and made the new hearing dates peremptory to the insurer.

Four individuals injured in a motor vehicle accident received treatment from a chiropractor, who submitted OCF-23 forms to the appellant insurer.

The appellant argued these forms did not constitute a 'completed application for benefits' under s. 2 of O. Reg. 283/95.

The arbitrator and application judge found that the forms provided sufficient particulars to reasonably assist the insurer with processing the application and assessing the claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming that an application need not be on a specific form to trigger the 'pay now, dispute later' obligation, provided it contains sufficient information to commence adjusting the claim.

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

After mediation failed, the applicant applied for arbitration and obtained medical reports from an orthopaedic surgeon and a chiropractor.

The parties settled the substantive issues but disputed whether the cost of the medical reports were payable as arbitration expenses.

The arbitrator found that the reports were commissioned in contemplation of the arbitration proceeding to meet the applicant's evidentiary burden, rather than as examination expenses under section 24 of the Schedule.

The insurer was ordered to pay $1,200 for each report as arbitration expenses under subsection 282(11) of the Insurance Act.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated her income replacement benefits, arguing she was capable of returning to work.

The arbitrator found that the applicant made honest and sustained attempts to return to her pre-accident employment as an accountant, but was unable to continue due to her injuries.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's medical assessments suggesting a lack of motivation, finding the applicant's testimony credible and her attempts to work genuine.

The applicant was found to be substantially disabled from performing the essential tasks of her employment and completely unable to engage in suitable employment, entitling her to ongoing income replacement benefits.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the commencement date of litigation privilege over certain documents in an accident benefits dispute.

The plaintiff argued that the judge erred in accepting a bald assertion by the defendant's lawyer as sufficient evidence to meet the dominant purpose test for litigation privilege.

The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the decision conflicted with established authorities and that there was good reason to doubt its correctness, satisfying the test under Rule 62.02(4)(a) and (b).

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits beyond the 104-week mark, as well as the cost of a golf cart as a rehabilitation expense.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant's inability to work was due to a pre-existing back injury and that she was capable of working with accommodations.

The insurer also argued that the applicant's HOOPP disability pension should be deducted from any income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator found that the motor vehicle accident materially contributed to the applicant's impairments, rendering her completely unable to perform any suitable occupation.

The arbitrator also held that the HOOPP pension was not an income continuation plan or temporary disability benefit, and thus was not deductible.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits and the cost of the golf cart.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits, claiming the accident aggravated pre-existing neck, back, and shoulder injuries from a prior accident.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the applicant's disability stemmed entirely from his pre-existing conditions.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim, finding that the applicant's pre-existing conditions were the principal cause for him leaving his pre-accident job weeks before the subject accident.

The arbitrator concluded that the subject accident did not appreciably change or worsen the applicant's pre-existing disabilities.