4 total
Insurer's repayment claim dismissed due to defective notice; applicant denied post-104-week IRBs but granted chronic pain assessment.
The applicant sought entitlement to post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRBs), various medical and rehabilitation benefits, and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent insurer denied the benefits and sought repayment of $14,381.91 in previously paid IRBs, alleging wilful misrepresentation.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim for post-104-week IRBs, finding the applicant failed to establish a complete inability to engage in any employment.
The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's claim for repayment, ruling that the repayment notice was defective because it failed to specify the period for which repayment was sought.
The applicant was granted entitlement to a chronic pain assessment, as evidence showed it was warranted and not reasonably available through OHIP, but the remaining treatment plans were denied.
Application for accident benefits dismissed as statute-barred due to unexcused five-year delay.
The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The insurer denied the benefits in June 2018, citing insufficient documentation.
The applicant filed her application with the Tribunal in April 2023, nearly five years later.
The Tribunal found the insurer's denial was clear and unequivocal, triggering the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, finding significant delay, prejudice to the insurer, and a lack of evidence supporting the merits of the claim.
The application was dismissed as statute-barred.
Motion to add police board as defendant dismissed as an abuse of process attempting to relitigate prior findings.
The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to add the Port Hope Police Services Board as a defendant and to amend his statement of claim.
The proposed amendments alleged that Port Hope Police provided an unredacted report to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, leading to the dismissal of his complaint, and that police were involved in his termination from employment.
The court dismissed the motion to add Port Hope Police, finding the proposed claims were an abuse of process as they sought to relitigate findings already made in previous Federal Court and wrongful dismissal proceedings.
Unopposed amendments to increase damages and add a Charter claim against the existing defendant were permitted.
Motion to substitute named defendants for 'John Doe' granted despite limitation period expiry and plaintiff delay.
The plaintiffs were involved in a motor vehicle accident and commenced an action against their own insurer and 'John Doe' as the unidentified driver.
Almost two and a half years later, the plaintiffs brought a motion to substitute the proposed defendants for 'John Doe' on the basis of misnomer.
The proposed defendants argued they would suffer prejudice due to the plaintiffs' delay and lack of due diligence.
Applying the Court of Appeal's jurisprudence on misnomer, the Master granted the motion, finding that the proposed defendants' insurer was aware of the accident from the outset.
However, due to the plaintiffs' significant delay, they were denied interest on any ultimate recovery from the date of the accident until June 30, 2018.
