6 total
Motion to bifurcate occupier's liability claim from trailing derivative contractual third-party claims granted to avoid delay.
The plaintiff brought a motion to bifurcate her main occupier's liability action and two related third-party claims from two other trailing third-party claims involving subcontractors.
The plaintiff argued that the trailing claims, which were derivative contractual disputes, would cause significant unnecessary delay to her personal injury trial.
The defendants opposed, arguing that bifurcation would lead to overlapping evidence and inconsistent verdicts, especially given the presence of jury notices.
The court granted the motion, finding that the occupier's liability issues were clearly severable from the contractual disputes, and that the plaintiff would suffer undue prejudice from further delay if the actions were not bifurcated.
Insurer's appeal in priority dispute dismissed; arbitrator's finding that co-parents were not spouses upheld.
The applicant insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision in a priority dispute regarding accident benefits.
The arbitrator had found that the applicant failed to establish that the claimant and his co-parent were spouses under s. 224(1)(c)(ii) of the Insurance Act, making the applicant the priority insurer.
The Superior Court of Justice applied the appellate standard of review, finding no extricable error of law in the arbitrator's application of the M. v. H. criteria for a conjugal relationship.
Applying the palpable and overriding error standard, the court held that the arbitrator's conclusion was supported by the evidence, which included contradictory testimony and surveillance evidence of limited weight.
The appeal was dismissed.
Motion to re-open trial for future care costs denied due to lack of reasonable diligence.
During a jury trial, the plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 52.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to allow the jury to determine if past and future care costs were warranted, despite having called no evidence on these issues.
The plaintiff proposed that if the jury found such costs warranted, the quantum could be determined later by a judge.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining the necessary expert evidence before trial.
The court also held that bifurcating the issue would improperly remove the determination of the extent and quantum of future care costs from the jury.
Insurer's motion for production partially granted; third-party orders denied for lack of evidentiary support.
The insurer brought a motion to compel the applicants and certain third parties to produce various documents, including medical records, WSIB files, and employment files, in a dispute over statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The arbitrator denied the requests for third-party production due to a lack of evidentiary support demonstrating that the documents were reasonably required for a fair hearing.
However, the arbitrator ordered the applicants to produce or update certain records within their control, such as updated clinical notes, collateral benefits information, and contact details for service providers, while denying requests for unidentified or irrelevant records.
Income replacement benefits granted but attendant care, housekeeping, and medical benefits denied due to unreliable evidence.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement, attendant care, housekeeping, and medical benefits.
The insurer denied the claims, arguing the accident did not occur as described and the applicant was untruthful.
The arbitrator found the applicant proved the accident occurred and was entitled to income replacement benefits due to a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment.
However, the claims for attendant care, housekeeping, and medical benefits were dismissed due to insufficient, unreliable, and exaggerated evidence.
The applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments, and both parties were ordered to bear their own arbitration expenses.
Claims for statutory accident benefits dismissed due to symptom magnification and lack of credible evidence.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits, which the insurer denied.
The arbitrator found significant credibility issues with the applicant's evidence, noting surveillance footage that contradicted his claimed limitations and medical assessments indicating symptom magnification.
The arbitrator concluded that the applicant's ongoing issues were likely related to pre-existing degenerative conditions rather than the accident.
Consequently, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life or a reasonable necessity for the claimed attendant care and housekeeping services.
All claims for benefits, a special award, and interest were dismissed.
