Peter Cho

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming substantial post-accident business losses from her self-employment as a pet store owner.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits and sought repayment of an alleged overpayment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the quantum of her income replacement benefits, as her claimed business losses were unsupported by documentary evidence and not proven to be caused by the accident.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's claim for repayment, finding its accounting evidence lacked sufficient detail to establish the overpayment calculation.

Both claims were dismissed.

The insureds were seriously injured in a motorcycle accident.

They had standard accident benefits with Economical and optional enhanced benefits with Heartland.

Due to an innocent mistake and incorrect advice, they submitted their initial application for benefits to Economical instead of Heartland.

Heartland denied their subsequent claim for optional benefits, arguing the insureds had elected to claim from Economical.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal initially granted the insureds relief from forfeiture, but this was overturned on reconsideration.

On appeal, the Divisional Court restored the initial LAT decision, holding that the LAT has jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture under s. 129 of the Insurance Act, and that the insureds were entitled to withdraw their mistaken application and apply to Heartland.

The respondent requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that granted the applicant relief from forfeiture, allowing them to rescind an application to one insurer and apply to the respondent.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant equitable remedies.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding that the Tribunal, as a statutory body, does not have the inherent jurisdiction of a court to grant equitable relief such as relief from forfeiture under section 129 of the Insurance Act.

The reconsideration was granted, and the original decision ordering relief from forfeiture was rescinded.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that granted the applicant relief from forfeiture, allowing her to rescind an application to one insurer and apply to the respondent.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the original decision contained an error of law.

The Tribunal, as a statutory creature, does not have the inherent jurisdiction of a court to grant equitable remedies such as relief from forfeiture under section 129 of the Insurance Act.

The original decision was rescinded, and the applicant was found not entitled to relief from forfeiture.

The plaintiff brought a negligence action for injuries from an automobile accident, with liability admitted by the defendants.

The trial proceeded on damages only before a jury.

The court addressed a dispute between counsel regarding the wording of jury questions.

The defendants proposed questions that included a causation question despite admitted liability, and sought to particularize damages by apportioning them between the initial accident and subsequent accidents.

The court rejected the defendants' proposed questions, finding them to contain embedded assumptions, to be overly complicated, and to risk confusion.

The court affirmed that admitted liability includes causation, making a separate causation question unnecessary.

It also reiterated principles against apportionment between tortious and non-tortious causes for indivisible injuries, and the general rule against requiring juries to provide reasons or particularize findings, especially for damages assessment.

The plaintiff's simpler, general damages questions were adopted.

The applicants were injured in a motorcycle accident and inadvertently applied for statutory accident benefits from their standard policy insurer rather than their enhanced policy insurer.

The enhanced policy insurer denied their subsequent claim, arguing the initial election was binding.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found it had jurisdiction under section 129 of the Insurance Act to grant equitable relief.

Applying the test for relief from forfeiture, the Tribunal allowed the applicants to rescind their initial application and apply for the enhanced benefits, noting the innocent nature of the error and the consumer protection mandate of the Schedule.

The applicants were involved in a motorcycle accident and inadvertently applied for statutory accident benefits from their standard policy insurer (Economical) instead of their enhanced policy insurer (Heartland).

Heartland denied their subsequent claim, arguing the initial application to Economical was irrevocable.

The applicants sought relief from forfeiture to rescind their initial application and apply to Heartland.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction under section 129 of the Insurance Act to grant equitable relief.

Applying the test for relief from forfeiture, the Tribunal found the applicants made an innocent mistake, the gravity of the breach was minimal, and the disparity between the forfeited enhanced benefits and the damage caused was significant.

The Tribunal granted relief from forfeiture, allowing the applicants to rescind their application with Economical and apply to Heartland.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for medical cannabis, occupational therapy, psychotherapy at a higher rate, and vitamins following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the medical cannabis and vitamins were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also found that the psychotherapy rate of $149.61 was not justified for a psychotherapist, and upheld the respondent's approved rate of $91.43.

However, the Tribunal granted the claim for occupational therapy services, finding that the respondent's psychological assessment failed to grasp the functional purpose of the occupational therapy intervention.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the occupational therapy treatment with interest, but the claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which were denied by the insurer.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal 59 days after the expiry of the two-year limitation period, accounting for the COVID-19 suspension period.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act and found that the applicant had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was not significant, the respondent would not suffer prejudice, and there was some merit to the claim.

The Tribunal exercised its discretion to extend the limitation period and allowed the application to proceed.

The plaintiff, a prominent human rights lawyer, was struck by the defendant's motor vehicle while riding her bicycle.

The defendant failed to discharge the reverse onus under the Highway Traffic Act and was found wholly liable.

The court accepted expert medical evidence that the plaintiff suffered a permanent mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and chronic migraines, which effectively ended her legal career.

The court dismissed the defendants' threshold motion, finding the plaintiff sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important function, and awarded substantial damages including $250,000 in general damages, past and future income loss, and future care costs.

The plaintiff brought an urgent motion to conditionally strike the jury notice for a trial scheduled to commence on January 17, 2022, due to COVID-19 pandemic developments suspending jury selections.

The defendants opposed the motion.

The court considered factors such as court resources, local pandemic impact, prejudice to parties (especially the plaintiff due to financial implications and case age), and history of adjournments.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, ordering that the trial proceed without a jury if juries are not being impaneled, and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

The applicants were seriously injured in a motorcycle accident and inadvertently applied for statutory accident benefits to the insurer of the motorcycle rather than their own auto insurer, with whom they had purchased optional enhanced benefits.

When they attempted to claim the optional benefits, their auto insurer denied the claim on the basis that they had already applied to another insurer.

The applicants brought an application to the Superior Court for relief from forfeiture.

The court dismissed the application, finding that under section 280 of the Insurance Act, exclusive jurisdiction to resolve disputes regarding entitlement to statutory accident benefits lies with the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT), stripping the court of jurisdiction to grant equitable relief in this context.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision which found that the respondent's dirt bike was an 'automobile' under the Insurance Act, entitling him to statutory accident benefits.

The respondent was catastrophically injured in a motocross competition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the LAT's interpretation that the dirt bike was not exempt from the Off-Road Vehicles Act because the closed course competition was not sponsored by a motorcycle association.

The court found no error of law in the LAT's application of the Ledcor onus test, the Adams test for automobiles, or its statutory interpretation.

On a statutory appeal from a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision, the insurer challenged a ruling that an injured dirt bike rider was entitled to statutory accident benefits.

The court held there was no legal error in allocating onus to the insurer on the narrow exemption issue and no reversible error in applying the Adams framework.

Interpreting s. 2(1)5 of O. Reg. 863 purposively and contextually, the court agreed that motorcycle-association sponsorship applies to both closed course competitions and rallies, so the exemption did not apply on the record.

Although the reconsideration reasons improperly referenced a document outside the hearing record, the court found no procedural unfairness because that reference did not affect the ultimate analysis.

The appeal and the insurer’s fresh-evidence motion were dismissed, with costs to the respondent.

The plaintiff fractured her ankle while disembarking from the defendant's bus on a winter day.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing it met the requisite standard of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence regarding the condition of the stairs and the reasonableness of the defendant's cleaning policy was inconclusive.

The court held that a jury is the appropriate body to assess the common sense question of whether the bus driver should have mopped the floor during winter stopovers.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired in a motor vehicle accident, sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that a protective cell phone case, an ergonomic lawn chair, a mattress, and the Guideline rate for a registered nurse case manager were reasonable and necessary.

However, claims for a new iPhone, a FitBit, a riding lawnmower, and an increased rate for an acupuncturist were dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for a special award and costs.

The applicant was catastrophically injured while driving a dirt bike in a closed course motocross competition.

The insurer denied his claim for accident benefits, relying on an exclusion under s. 2(1) 5 of O. Reg. 863 under the Off-Road Vehicles Act for vehicles driven at a closed course competition or rally sponsored by a motorcycle association.

A preliminary motion decision found the applicant was excluded from benefits.

On reconsideration, the Associate Chair found the adjudicator erred in statutory interpretation by applying the last antecedent rule to conclude that closed course competitions did not need to be sponsored by a motorcycle association to be exempt, and by finding that the organizing corporation qualified as a motorcycle association.

The Request for Reconsideration was granted, and the applicant was found not to be excluded from receiving accident benefits.

The Attorney General for Ontario (AGO) brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim, which sought $4.5 million in damages.

The plaintiff's action alleged wrongful non-disclosure, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, misfeasance in public office, false imprisonment, and various Charter breaches against the AGO, arising from his arrest, conviction, and subsequent appeal and acquittal for firearms-related offences.

The court granted the AGO's motion, striking all claims against the AGO without leave to amend.

The court found that the plaintiff's allegations confused legal conclusions (e.g., the unlawfulness of a search, determined on appeal) with facts that the Crown should have disclosed or known at the time of trial.

It also determined that the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary elements for the asserted torts, such as malice or improper purpose, and that the Crown's role includes advancing legal theories, even if ultimately unsuccessful.

The applicant was injured while driving a dirt bike at a closed course competition and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the dirt bike was not an 'automobile' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal held that the dirt bike was exempt from the requirement to be insured under section 2(1)(e) of O. Reg. 863 under the Off-Road Vehicles Act, as it was driven at a closed course competition.

Consequently, the dirt bike did not meet the definition of an automobile, and the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' entitling him to benefits.

The application was dismissed.

Two consolidated appeals concerning the enforceability of liability waivers executed by ski resort patrons.

The central issue was whether the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) or the Occupiers' Liability Act (OLA) governs the relationship between ski resorts and patrons who purchased ski tickets and executed waivers as a condition of entry.

The lower courts held that the CPA applied and voided the waivers.

The Court of Appeal held that the OLA and CPA conflict, and that the more specific OLA provisions prevail over the general CPA provisions.

The court allowed the appeals and held that the waivers were valid and enforceable.