Richard A. Levin

The appellant appealed the decision of the motion judge dismissing his action.

The Court of Appeal found no error, noting that the appellant failed to plead material facts for causes of action independent of his wrongful dismissal claim.

As the appellant had already amended his pleadings twice and did not provide a proposed statement of claim, the court upheld the refusal to grant leave to amend and dismissed the appeal.

In a pre-hearing discussion regarding a claim for statutory accident benefits, the applicant sought production of the insurer's adjusting notes up to the date she filed her Application for Arbitration.

The insurer objected, claiming privilege as litigation was contemplated.

The arbitrator declined to expand the scope of production to the arbitration filing date, noting that doing so would undermine the mediation process and prompt insurers to hire counsel earlier simply to protect their notes.

Production was ordered up to the date the Application for Mediation was filed, excluding notes pertaining to the setting of reserves.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs), housekeeping benefits, and medical benefits after the insurer terminated them.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was entitled to IRBs and housekeeping benefits until November 30, 2003, as the medical evidence indicated he was substantially unable to perform his employment and housekeeping tasks until that time.

The arbitrator also awarded medical benefits for chiropractic treatment and assistive devices, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, the applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed, as the insurer's decision to terminate benefits was not unreasonable given the contradictory information and medical evidence available at the time.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the underinsured defendants.

The plaintiff's insurer, Zurich, was added as a defendant.

Zurich later discovered the defendant driver was delivering pizza for Pizza Nova at the time of the accident and issued a third party claim against Pizza Nova in its own name.

Pizza Nova appealed the dismissal of its motion to strike the third party claim, arguing that a subrogated claim must be brought in the name of the insured and that the limitation period had expired.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 29.01 permits a subrogated insurer to issue a third party claim in its own name to avoid a multiplicity of proceedings, and that the limitation period defence raised a triable issue based on discoverability.

The appellants appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice regarding the interpretation of s. 267(1) of the Railways Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motions judge's determination that maintenance is a necessary part of the operation of a subway system.

Costs of $1,500 were awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought production of the insurer's entire accident benefits file, including adjusters' notes, internal memoranda, and solicitor-client communications.

The insurer claimed litigation and solicitor-client privilege.

The arbitrator ordered production of the file up to the date the issues were referred to mediation, finding that the insurer failed to establish that the dominant purpose of the documents created before that date was for litigation or that legal advice was sought.

The insurer's cross-motion for a medical assessment under section 42 of the Schedule was dismissed, as the arbitrator found it was sought primarily to bolster the insurer's case at the upcoming arbitration rather than to determine entitlement to a benefit.

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

Zurich brought a preliminary motion arguing it had an absolute defence under the Disputes Between Insurers Regulation, alleging that another insurer, Lumbermens, was the first to receive a completed application for benefits.

The arbitrator found that Zurich's evidence was based on unsupported hearsay, while documentary evidence from Lumbermens refuted the claim that it had received an application.

The arbitrator concluded that Zurich received the first completed application and dismissed the motion, allowing the applicant to proceed to arbitration against Zurich.