Rachel Radomski

The applicant sought a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 and interest, alleging the respondent unreasonably delayed or withheld payment for treatment plans and non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The substantive benefit claims were resolved prior to the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's conduct in requesting further documentation under s. 33 and the subsequent timeline did not rise to the threshold of being excessive, imprudent, stubborn, inflexible, unyielding, or immoderate.

The claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The respondent moved to dismiss the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits as abandoned after the applicant missed a deadline for written submissions.

The delay was caused by the death of the applicant's former counsel, a fact known to the respondent.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of abandonment given the applicant's clear intention to proceed once new counsel was retained.

The Tribunal awarded $250 in costs to the applicant, holding that the respondent acted in bad faith by pursuing the motion despite knowing the exceptional circumstances.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a dismissed summary judgment motion brought by the defendant Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA).

The plaintiffs, having successfully resisted the motion, sought partial indemnity costs of $41,033.67.

The TSSA proposed an award of $10,000, arguing that many claimed costs and disbursements related to the action generally rather than specifically to the motion.

The court, applying principles from the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, found the plaintiffs' requested hourly rates and disbursements, including expert reports and scheduling attendances, to be reasonable.

The court emphasized that it should not second-guess successful counsel's time on a motion that could have terminated the action.

Ultimately, the court ordered the TSSA to pay the plaintiffs $40,000 in costs, inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The Technical Standards and Safety Authority (TSSA) brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss an action against it following a severe escalator injury to a minor plaintiff.

The TSSA argued it owed no duty of care regarding inspection frequency, met the standard of care in its inspections, and its actions did not cause the injuries.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court emphasized that the necessary findings of fact could not be made without live witness evidence, and that the issues were not clearly severable from the broader case against other defendants, posing a risk of inconsistent findings if partial summary judgment were granted.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent terminated the IRBs after the applicant returned to work and provided notice of the termination.

More than two years later, the applicant stopped working and sought to reinstate the IRBs.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was statute-barred from appealing the denial because the two-year limitation period commenced upon the clear termination notice, and subsequent inquiries by the respondent did not reset the limitation period.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to examine a non-party treating physician.

The respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding whether the order was final or interlocutory.

The Court of Appeal held that because discoveries were not yet complete and the information might still be obtained from the parties, the order was interlocutory.

Consequently, the appeal was quashed for lack of jurisdiction, with leave granted to seek an appeal at the Divisional Court.