Raymond A. Murray

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

Following an arbitration hearing where all of the applicant's claims were dismissed, the insurer sought its expenses totaling $125,698.25.

The arbitrator found that the insurer was 100% successful and had made a written offer to settle, entitling it to expenses.

However, applying the principle of fairness and noting that the SABS is consumer protection legislation, the arbitrator reduced the claimed fees by 50% and significantly reduced the claimed disbursements, awarding the insurer a total of $52,334.19 in expenses.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision denying his request for interest and a special award following a settlement for attendant care and housekeeping benefits.

The Director's Delegate upheld the Arbitrator's finding that the appellant was required to provide proof of ongoing incurred expenses before the insurer was obligated to pay the settled benefits, and that the insurer's request for such proof did not warrant a special award.

However, the Delegate found the Arbitrator erred in denying interest on the delayed payments, ruling that interest is mandatory and compensatory under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule even when an insurer legitimately requests further information.

The appeal was allowed in part to award interest.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and Housekeeping and Home Maintenance Benefits from the Insurer.

The Insurer denied the claims.

At arbitration, the Applicant claimed he was self-employed prior to the accident and suffered a substantial inability to work and perform housekeeping tasks.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant's testimony lacked credibility and that he failed to provide sufficient evidence of pre-accident business income, as his tax returns showed only passive investment income.

Furthermore, medical evidence did not establish that his injuries were caused by the accident rather than extensive pre-existing conditions.

The Arbitrator dismissed the claims for IRBs, housekeeping benefits, and interest, finding the Applicant failed to meet his burden of proof.

The defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim based on the expiration of the limitation period.

The plaintiff alleged misappropriation of software and breach of non-disclosure agreements and fiduciary duties.

The court applied the discoverability principle under the Limitations Act, 2002, finding that the plaintiff did not discover its claim until September 11, 2009, when it confirmed the defendants authored the disputed software.

Consequently, the action, commenced on September 9, 2011, was within the two-year limitation period.

The court dismissed the limitation defense, granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiff.

Secondary issues regarding discovery were adjourned or left to the trial judge.

Following an eight‑day trial in which the plaintiff’s action was dismissed, the successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs after an earlier settlement offer to dismiss the claim without costs.

The plaintiff argued that costs should remain on a partial indemnity scale and challenged both the proportionality of counsel time and several disbursements.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, including the magnitude of the claim, the complexity of the litigation, the importance of the issues to other generators, and the relative financial positions of the parties.

The judge concluded that the amounts sought were excessive and that the unsuccessful party should not bear the full scope of the defendant’s litigation resources.

Total costs were fixed at $250,000 inclusive of HST.

A small hydroelectric power producer sought a declaration and damages concerning the interpretation of a long‑term electricity purchase contract.

The plaintiff argued that payments after the tenth year of the agreement were required to escalate annually with inflation, while the defendant maintained that the contract fixed the tenth‑year rate as a floor and permitted annual rate determinations thereafter.

The court held the contract language was clear and contained no entitlement to an automatic inflation escalator.

Claims based on estoppel arising from the treatment of other generators were rejected.

Although the limitation period did not bar claims arising within two years before the action, the plaintiff ultimately failed to establish entitlement under the contract.

A youth care worker brought a civil action against her employer and supervisor after being violently assaulted and sexually assaulted by a resident at a group home.

The defendants’ statement of defence was struck and they were noted in default, leaving a trial solely on damages.

The court permitted an amendment to increase the claimed damages because the defendants had notice and suffered no prejudice.

Applying principles governing non‑pecuniary damages for sexual assault and workplace negligence, the court awarded substantial general damages including aggravated damages, together with damages for past and future income loss supported by expert evidence.

The defendants were held jointly and severally liable for the total damages award.

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

At the outset of the arbitration hearing, the parties requested an adjournment to allow for global mediation, which was granted.

The arbitrator also ruled on preliminary issues regarding witness availability and document production.

The insurer was ordered to make its physiatrist and claims specialist available for cross-examination, and to produce its complete file up to the date of mediation, subject to claims of privilege.

The applicant, an Ontario resident, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Quebec and elected to receive personal assistance and care expenses under the Quebec Automobile Insurance Act.

The insurer paid benefits initially but terminated them in November 2003 based on an occupational therapy assessment.

The applicant sought retroactive and ongoing benefits, arguing the assessment failed to account for her cognitive deficits.

The arbitrator found the initial assessment flawed and accepted a later assessment that properly scored the applicant's need for assistance with complex tasks due to her brain injury.

The arbitrator awarded retroactive benefits of $70 per week for the period from November 2003 to January 2010, and ongoing benefits at a higher rate thereafter.

Furthermore, the arbitrator found the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by failing to reassess the applicant upon receiving new information about her cognitive challenges, and ordered the insurer to pay a special award and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was largely unsuccessful at arbitration.

The parties were unable to resolve the issue of expenses, leading to this costs decision.

The arbitrator considered the factors under section 12 of Regulation 664, including the insurer's success on almost all issues and the applicant's settlement offers.

Finding that the insurer did not act unreasonably in rejecting the offers and that the applicant was successful on only a very small part of her claim, the arbitrator denied the applicant her expenses.

The insurer was awarded 50% of its legal fees and disbursements, excluding travel expenses for out-of-town counsel, resulting in a costs award of $2,560.61 payable by the applicant.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits for over two years.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing his ongoing disability was caused by pre-existing fibromyalgia and psychological issues, not the accident.

The arbitrator found the applicant was completely disabled from suitable employment but concluded that neither party presented reliable evidence on whether the accident caused the disability.

The arbitrator determined that the applicant bore the legal burden of proving causation.

Because the applicant failed to discharge this burden, his claim for ongoing income replacement benefits was dismissed.

The applicants, a husband and wife, were injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from their insurer.

The insurer denied claims for caregiver benefits, housekeeping and home maintenance services, medical benefits, and transportation expenses.

The arbitrator found that both applicants suffered impairments that substantially prevented them from performing their pre-accident housekeeping and caregiving duties.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay the claimed medical, transportation, housekeeping, and caregiver benefits, finding the expenses to be reasonable and necessary.

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

The insurer denied the claims beyond June 25, 2003.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident caregiving and housekeeping activities, noting she had returned to most tasks and received significant assistance from family members both before and after the accident.

The arbitrator also dismissed most of the claims for medical benefits, finding the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary given the applicant's improved condition, but awarded $540 for an outstanding physical therapy account.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

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

A dispute arose regarding the format of the pre-hearing conference.

The insurer, having retained out-of-town counsel, requested a teleconference, while the applicant requested an in-person hearing in Toronto.

The arbitrator held that the applicant's choice of venue should not be lightly abrogated and ordered that the resumption of the pre-hearing take place in person at the Commission's offices in Toronto.