4 total
Costs of $15,000 awarded to plaintiff following successful motion to strike jury notice during COVID-19.
The plaintiff was successful on a motion to strike a jury notice due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The parties agreed that $15,000 represented partial indemnity costs for the motion.
The defendants argued that costs should be reserved to the trial judge or reduced due to the novel facts and mixed results.
The court rejected these arguments, finding the plaintiff was largely successful and the applicable legal test was well-settled despite the novel factual context.
Costs of $15,000 were awarded to the plaintiff payable forthwith.
Municipality's policy to bill wastewater services based on water supplied does not violate the Municipal Act.
The plaintiff sued the defendant municipality, alleging it was overcharged for wastewater services because the municipality billed based on the volume of water supplied rather than the lesser volume of wastewater actually discharged.
The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment.
The court granted the motion, finding that section 394(1)(c) of the Municipal Act, 2001 does not prohibit a municipality from charging for wastewater services based on water supplied, as the municipality actually provided the service and the fee was a reasonable estimate of cost recovery.
The court also held that the municipality's billing method was a policy decision protected by statutory immunity.
Place of residence is not determinative of entitlement to statutory accident benefits for an accident in Ontario.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Ontario while driving a Quebec-registered vehicle.
He applied for statutory accident benefits in Ontario.
The insurer denied benefits, arguing the applicant was a resident of Quebec and must apply to the SAAQ.
On a preliminary issue, the arbitrator held that the applicant's place of residence was not determinative of his entitlement to benefits under the Ontario Schedule, as section 45(1) of the Insurance Act allows non-residents involved in accidents in Ontario to claim benefits in Ontario.
Weekly income benefits reinstated for a limited period; ongoing disability claim dismissed based on surveillance video.
The applicant, a self-employed bricklayer, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the insurer terminated them.
The applicant sought reinstatement of benefits, claiming ongoing disability due to chronic neck and back pain.
The arbitrator found that while the applicant's pre-existing degenerative disc disease was aggravated by the accident, surveillance video demonstrating the applicant laying bricks showed he no longer had physical limitations preventing him from working.
The arbitrator concluded the applicant was entitled to benefits up to July 31, 1993, but failed to prove ongoing disability beyond that date.
