Riley McIntyre

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment (CAT) based on mental and behavioural disorders, and entitlement to a post-104-week income replacement benefit (IRB).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant sustained psychological impairments from the accident, she did not meet the Criterion 8 threshold for CAT, as she demonstrated only moderate impairments across the four spheres of functioning.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, preferring the respondent's multi-disciplinary assessment.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, a pre-existing condition, and a psychological impairment.

The adjudicator found the applicant's reporting of pain and functional limitations to various assessors and his family doctor was inconsistent, failing to establish chronic pain with functional impairment.

The applicant also failed to provide pre-accident medical evidence of a pre-existing condition.

Finally, the adjudicator preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, finding no psychological condition that would remove him from the MIG.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that the insurer failed to provide a compliant notice under section 36(4) of the Schedule, and therefore the benefit was payable under section 36(6).

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denial letter was issued under section 36(7) following an insurer's examination, and the Schedule provides no remedy for non-compliance with section 36(7).

The Tribunal further found that the applicant failed to meet the substantive test for a non-earner benefit, as no evidence was provided to compare pre- and post-accident activities.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological impairments, pre-existing conditions, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal drew an adverse inference against the applicant for failing to produce required medical records.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered a psychological impairment, that her pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG, or that she developed chronic pain as a result of the accident.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans or interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claims, and the applicant applied to the Tribunal more than two years after the denials.

The preliminary issue was whether the claims were statute-barred under s. 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the denial notice for non-earner benefits was defective as it lacked specific medical reasons, meaning the limitation period was not triggered for that claim.

However, the denial notices for the treatment and assessment plans were valid and triggered the limitation period.

As the applicant did not file within two years and provided no grounds for an extension under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, the claims for the treatment and assessment plans were statute-barred.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following its August 15, 2024 decision.

The parties resolved the costs of the appeal and underlying prejudgment interest motions by consent.

The respondent agreed to pay the appellants an all-inclusive amount of $60,000 for appeal and motion costs.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's prejudgment interest order, arguing errors in applying statutory rates and discretion under the Courts of Justice Act.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred by misapplying the presumptive 5% rate for non-pecuniary damages, misconstruing the purpose of non-pecuniary damages, and misinterpreting "market interest rates" by equating them with statutory prejudgment rates.

The trial judge also improperly rejected evidence of the insurer's and appellants' actual investment returns.

The appeal was allowed, and the prejudgment interest rate for both non-pecuniary and past pecuniary damages was increased to 8.46%.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and raising preliminary issues of non-compliance with s. 33 (failure to produce medical records) and s. 55 (failure to attend insurer examinations).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to comply with s. 33 requests for medical records, relieving the insurer of liability to pay the disputed benefits.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to adduce evidence that his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline or that the requested treatment was reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits and a catastrophic impairment designation following a motor vehicle accident.

A 10-day videoconference hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend and did not provide any documentary evidence.

The Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to Rule 3.7.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules.

As the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and orthopedic impairments, specifically degenerative disc disease and foraminal stenosis.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for chronic pain under the AMA Guides, noting his reports of minimal pain to his family doctors and lack of functional impairment.

The Tribunal also found no medical evidence linking the degenerative changes on his MRI to the accident.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied a treatment plan on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

After the applicant provided new medical records, the insurer scheduled an insurer's examination under s. 44 of the Schedule to determine if the new information altered her entitlement.

The applicant failed to attend the examination.

The Tribunal held that the insurer's notice was compliant and the examination was reasonably necessary.

Consequently, the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with her application under s. 55 of the Schedule.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action for delay by a motion judge, who had also dismissed their motion to extend the timetable.

The action, commenced in 2014, faced significant delays, primarily due to the appellants' failure to obtain written consent from the City of Ottawa (to whom the action was subrogated under the WSIA) for several years.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the appellants failed to provide an acceptable explanation for the inordinate delay and did not rebut the presumption of prejudice to the respondents, given the lack of progress in the litigation.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident and remains in a persistent vegetative state, sought funding for occupational therapy and a speech-language therapy assessment.

The respondent denied the treatments as not reasonable and necessary.

Prior to the decision, the respondent agreed to pay for the speech-language assessment.

The Tribunal found that the occupational therapy services were reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's potential for improvement and the relatively minor cost of the treatment plan.

The applicant was awarded the balance of the occupational therapy services and interest on overdue amounts.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied various treatment plans and income replacement benefits, asserting the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he sustained a psychological impairment or chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which was consistent with the family physician's records showing no psychological complaints and a return to full-time work.

The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed because the applicant failed to submit a completed Disability Certificate prior to the period claimed.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiff brought a motion on the eve of trial to remove the defendant's lead counsel of record, alleging that the defence lawyer improperly used Summonses to Witness to obtain pre-trial disclosure of confidential medical records.

The plaintiff argued that the cover letters accompanying the summonses coerced witnesses into providing documents before trial to avoid attending court during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a reasonably informed member of the public, reading the summons and cover letter as a whole, would not interpret them as an attempt to obtain improper pre-trial discovery.

The plaintiff's alternative request to quash the summonses was reserved to the trial judge.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice while disembarking from his vehicle.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Schedule because the applicant had already exited the vehicle.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was still holding the interior door handle when he fell, meaning he was in the process of disembarking, which is an ordinary use of a vehicle.

The Tribunal further held that slipping on ice while exiting a vehicle is a reasonably foreseeable risk and not an intervening act that breaks the chain of causation.

The incident was deemed an accident.

The plaintiff, Paramjit Singh, and the defendant, Shoppers Home Health Care (Ontario) Inc., each sought costs following a four-week jury trial.

The jury found Shoppers liable for Mr. Singh's injuries but also found Mr. Singh 75% contributorily negligent, resulting in a total award of approximately $73,000, which was less favorable than Shoppers' Rule 49.10 settlement offer of $100,000.

The court determined that Shoppers' global offer to multiple plaintiffs (Mr. Singh and his family with FLA claims) was valid and triggered Rule 49.10 cost consequences.

The court then assessed Mr. Singh's partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and Shoppers' partial indemnity costs from that date to the end of trial, considering factors under Rule 57.01.

Despite Mr. Singh's success on liability, his low recovery and high contributory negligence meant the Rule 49.10 offer was beaten.

The court ultimately concluded that the allowable costs for both parties were effectively equivalent ($131,633 for Mr. Singh and $128,500-$138,500 for Shoppers) and declined to order costs payable by either party.