Peter Yoo

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought non-earner benefits, which the respondent denied.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal more than two years after the denial.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the claim was statute-barred.

The Tribunal applied the four-factor test under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act and found the applicant did not provide reasonable grounds to extend the limitation period, noting the significant delay and lack of a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit.

The applicant is barred from proceeding with the claim for non-earner benefits.

The applicant sought an interim order for payment of statutory accident benefits due to delays in the hearing process.

The respondent argued the Licence Appeal Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award interim benefits.

The Tribunal held that it does not have jurisdiction to award interim benefits, as the Insurance Act requires such powers to be explicitly granted by regulation, which the legislature has not done.

The preliminary issue was dismissed.

The applicant sought an interim order for payment of medical and attendant care benefits pending the final hearing of his statutory accident benefits dispute.

The respondent argued the Licence Appeal Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to award interim benefits.

The Tribunal agreed with the respondent, finding that recent amendments to the Insurance Act restricted its jurisdiction to make interim orders to those specifically provided for by regulation.

As no regulation currently permits interim benefits, the Tribunal concluded it has no jurisdiction to grant the requested relief and dismissed the preliminary issue.

The applicant sought payment of $2,200 for an attendant care assessment and Form 1 following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the insurer is liable to pay reasonable fees for such an assessment, the expense must first be incurred by the insured.

Because the applicant had not incurred the expense, and there was no evidence the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payment to justify deeming it incurred, the claim was dismissed.

Claims for interest and costs were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits and a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence to remove him from the MIG.

As the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the physiotherapy claim was denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, preferring the detailed reports of the respondent's assessors over the applicant's initial disability certificate.

The respondent's claim for costs was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a jury award of zero damages and a trial judge's ruling that her claim for non-pecuniary loss did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the jury verdict was perverse and the trial judge erred in his threshold analysis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding it was open to the jury to conclude the appellant's post-accident difficulties were inevitable due to pre-existing osteoarthritis, and there was ample evidence supporting the trial judge's threshold ruling.

Following a jury trial in a motor vehicle personal injury action where the plaintiff recovered no damages and the action was dismissed, the court determined the defendants’ entitlement to costs.

The defendants sought significant costs awards, including substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted settlement offer.

The court held that Rule 49.10 did not apply because the plaintiff obtained no judgment.

Applying s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court confirmed that successful parties are generally entitled to costs but emphasized that awards must be fair and reasonable.

The requested amounts were found excessive, and the court fixed reduced partial indemnity costs payable by the plaintiff to each defendant.

The court issued a consent order setting the timetable for the parties to deliver their costs submissions.

The co-defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a personal injury action arising from a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The plaintiff alleged negligence by the drivers of two vehicles ahead of him, asserting that their actions in slowing and stopping after police intervention caused the collision.

The court reviewed police reports, discovery transcripts, and documentary evidence and held that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of negligence that applies to a driver who rear-ends another vehicle.

The evidence established that the plaintiff was following too closely and failed to maintain proper vigilance and control.

The court concluded that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims and cross-claims.

The applicant claimed statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, and the applicant applied for arbitration.

The applicant failed to attend the pre-hearing discussion, motion, and the arbitration hearing despite receiving proper notice.

Pursuant to section 7(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and Rule 37.7 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, the hearing proceeded in the applicant's absence.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claims for benefits as he failed to present evidence to establish his entitlement.

The applicant was ordered to pay $1,000 for the insurer's arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for caregiving, attendant care, and housekeeping.

At the arbitration hearing, the self-represented applicant called no witnesses and produced no documentary or medical evidence to support his claims.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to establish a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident activities.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, and the applicant was ordered to pay $2,000 in expenses to the insurer.

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

The parties settled all issues except for expenses.

The insurer argued that its expenses from a preliminary issue hearing should be deducted from the applicant's expenses.

The arbitrator found that the release signed by the parties unambiguously required the insurer to pay the applicant's reasonable expenses.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant $35,430.00 for the arbitration expenses and an additional $150.00 for the expense hearing.

The insurer brought a motion for disclosure of information and documents in a statutory accident benefits dispute.

The insurer sought the addresses of the applicant's attendant care and housekeeping service providers, Defence Medical Reports from a related tort action, and details of the tort settlement.

The arbitrator ordered the applicant to provide the names and addresses of the service providers, finding it necessary for the insurer to prepare its defence.

However, the arbitrator denied the requests for the Defence Medical Reports and tort settlement details, as the insurer failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify production and the settlement details were not relevant to the issues in dispute.

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

The insurer later claimed an overpayment and sought repayment under section 47 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator held that subsection 47(3) creates a 12-month limitation period running from the first payment made in error, not a rolling limitation period.

Because the insurer failed to give notice within 12 months of the first erroneous payment, the applicant was not required to repay the overpaid benefits.

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

The parties disputed whether long term disability benefits received by the applicant were deductible from his income replacement benefits, and whether he should be classified as employed or self-employed for calculating his income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator found that the long term disability benefits were deductible under section 7(1)1.i of the Schedule, as they were weekly payments for loss of income under an income continuation plan.

The arbitrator also determined that the applicant, who worked as a mortgage agent in addition to his employment at Canada Post, operated as a sole proprietorship and should be treated as self-employed for the purpose of calculating his income replacement benefits.

The applicant's paralegal abandoned his practice and failed to appear at the scheduled arbitration hearing, necessitating an adjournment.

The arbitrator ordered $1,500 in costs thrown away payable to the insurer.

In this subsequent hearing to determine who should pay the costs, the arbitrator found that the paralegal's conduct caused expenses to be incurred without reasonable cause.

The arbitrator ordered the paralegal to personally pay the $1,500 in costs, finding that neither the applicant nor the lawyer she subsequently attempted to retain were responsible for the adjournment.

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

The insurer paid medical benefits but denied income replacement benefits.

The insurer sought to amend its Response to the Application for Arbitration to add a defence that the applicant failed to comply with the notice requirements under section 32 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator granted the insurer leave to amend its Response, finding no unwarranted prejudice to the applicant.

However, the arbitrator held that the applicant was not precluded from claiming income replacement benefits, as he had a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The insurer had failed to provide the applicant with complete and understandable information about his potential entitlements, inducing him to believe he was not entitled to income replacement benefits.