Paul D. Mooney

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a post-104-week income replacement benefit (IRB) and several treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide evidence regarding his education, training, or experience, and thus did not meet the test for a post-104-week IRB.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, finding that the applicant either failed to make specific submissions on their necessity or that the insurer's examinations, which concluded the treatments were not reasonable and necessary, carried more weight.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a prior motion where the defendant SCM Insurance Services Inc. successfully obtained an order prohibiting the plaintiff, Joanne Burwash, from using documents subject to the deemed undertaking rule.

SCM sought partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff argued for costs to be in the cause or for a reduction based on proportionality and the potential future admissibility of the documents.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments, finding that the deemed undertaking ruling was a final determination on the use of the documents.

The court awarded SCM its full requested partial indemnity costs of $52,573, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiffs (taxicab drivers and their union) sought an interlocutory injunction against Uber drivers to enforce a City by-law, which was denied.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that unsuccessful injunction motion.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $60,000 plus HST and disbursements to the successful Uber drivers, payable forthwith, considering the complexity and importance of the matter, the intense work required to respond to an injunction, and the applicants' sophistication.

Licensed taxicab drivers and their union brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to restrain Uber drivers from operating in Ottawa, alleging breaches of the City's taxi by-law and various economic torts.

The court found that while one taxicab driver had standing as a ratepayer and there was a serious issue to be tried, the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, as their alleged economic losses could be quantified in monetary terms.

Furthermore, the balance of convenience did not favour an injunction, given the plaintiffs' delay, their private financial interest, and the City's pending policy review of ridesharing services.

The motion for an injunction was dismissed.