Richard Robert Fernand Nolin

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to an Income Replacement Benefit.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by ignoring medical records and erred in law by improperly weighing expert evidence from a psychiatrist versus a psychologist and chiropractor.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as all evidence was reviewed, and holding that the weighing of expert evidence within their scope of practice is the role of the trier of fact and not grounds for reconsideration.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments prevented her from working.

The Tribunal reviewed conflicting medical assessments and found the applicant's presentation of pain and limitation to be inconsistent and lacking full effort.

Preferring the respondent's medical evidence, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

The application for IRBs, interest, and a special award was dismissed.

The moving party defendant sought to set aside a noting in default and to strike an affidavit she had previously sworn.

The underlying action arose from an ATV accident where the moving party was the driver and the plaintiff was a passenger.

The moving party had previously sworn an affidavit claiming ownership of the ATV, leading to the dismissal of the action against her common-law spouse.

After the plaintiff's claim was settled by the insurers, they sought subrogation against the moving party, who then claimed she had lied about owning the ATV to protect her spouse's assets.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the noting in default, finding that doing so would cause substantial prejudice to the innocent insurers who had relied on her representations.

The request to strike the affidavit was also dismissed as moot and inappropriate for a preliminary motion.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion to compel two police services to produce unredacted records relating to their investigations of incidents involving students at a school where the members were principal and vice-principal.

The members and the police services either consented or did not oppose the motion.

Applying the first stage of the O'Connor test, the Discipline Committee found the records were likely relevant and ordered the police services to produce them to the Panel for review, subject to certain redactions and Youth Criminal Justice Act provisions.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a motion to compel the production of third-party records from two police services regarding an incident involving students at a school where the members were principal and vice-principal.

The Discipline Committee applied the first stage of the O'Connor test and found that the records were likely relevant.

The Committee ordered the police services to produce the unredacted records to the Panel for review, after which the Panel will determine whether they should be produced to the parties.

Following a three-and-a-half-week jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff was awarded $36,000 in damages.

As this amount was less than the vanishing deductible, the action was dismissed.

The defendant sought costs of $211,234.92, having beaten a pre-trial offer to settle.

The court reduced the costs award to $150,000, noting that the defendant's late production of documents and lengthy cross-examination unnecessarily extended the trial by one-and-a-half weeks.

The plaintiff was granted 12 months to pay the costs award.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage enforcement action seeking repayment and possession of the mortgaged property following default.

The defendants argued that the parties had reached an oral agreement granting a moratorium on payments and suspending enforcement while the development project progressed.

Applying the summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court used its fact‑finding powers to evaluate credibility and draw inferences from the evidentiary record.

The court found no credible evidence establishing a binding forbearance agreement and concluded that the defendants failed to prove any modification to the mortgage terms.

Summary judgment was granted and the plaintiff obtained judgment for the principal, interest, and possession of the property.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for delay.

The action arose from a 1997 bicycle accident on the defendants' property, with the statement of claim issued in 2001.

The court found that the 13.5-year delay was inordinate and inexcusable, and that the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice, especially given that the defendants were now mentally incapable of instructing counsel.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss the action.

The appellant surveyors prepared a reference plan that incorrectly portrayed a right of way as a straight line, failing to show a curve that circumvented a rock outcrop.

The reference plan was deposited on title.

A dispute arose between the neighbouring property owners over the use of the road.

The surveyors brought a motion to rectify the reference plan under section 160 of the Land Titles Act.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, holding that the registered title was indefeasible.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that a reference plan does not independently create an interest in land and that the court has jurisdiction to rectify the boundaries of the right of way.

A homeowner sued a contractor for damages after basement water problems persisted following the installation of new weeping tile.

The court considered conflicting expert evidence regarding whether the tile had been installed in compliance with the Ontario Building Code.

The court found that the contractor failed to install the weeping tile below the basement floor in the area of a later addition, resulting in improper drainage and continued water infiltration.

Although other potential causes of leakage existed, the contractor remained responsible for the cost of correcting the defective installation.

The plaintiff was awarded partial damages for the cost of reinstalling weeping tile around the affected portion of the house.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing its claim for unpaid construction work as statute-barred.

The motions judge found that the invoice rendered by the appellant was a demand obligation under s. 5(3) of the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the limitation period commenced on the date the invoice was rendered, precluding the discoverability principle.

The Divisional Court majority upheld the decision, confirming that an invoice payable on demand is a demand obligation and time starts to run when the demand is made.

The appeal was dismissed.