Robert Michael Ben

The applicant sought an adjournment of the hearing because a delay in starting the hearing meant his medical witnesses were no longer available to testify in his preferred order.

The insurer opposed the adjournment, arguing the applicant should testify first.

The arbitrator granted the adjournment, finding that counsel has the responsibility to present witnesses in the order they think is best, and that the psychologist's testimony was critical evidence that was unavoidably delayed.

The applicant, a minor who sustained a catastrophic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits for private school tuition and rehabilitation support worker services.

The insurer denied the claims based on its own medical examinations.

The arbitrator found the insurer's denials unreasonable, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating team that the services were necessary for his social reintegration and cognitive development.

The arbitrator awarded the claimed benefits, interest, and a $28,000 special award against the insurer for unreasonably withholding payments.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sued the other driver.

In that tort action, she received a copy of an independent medical examination (IME) and a surveillance video from the tort defendant.

The plaintiff subsequently sued her own insurer for disability benefits.

During discoveries in the benefits action, the plaintiff refused to produce the IME and surveillance video, citing the deemed undertaking rule.

The Court of Appeal held that the deemed undertaking rule applies to the recipient of documents obtained in discovery.

Therefore, the plaintiff was bound by the deemed undertaking not to use the IME or the video in another proceeding, and could not disclose them in the benefits action without the consent of the tort defendant or a court order under rule 30.1.01(8).

The appellants brought a derivative claim under the Family Law Act.

The principal claim was statute-barred, but no claim had been brought by the Estate.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that if the principal claim is statute-barred, the derivative claim is also barred, regardless of whether the Estate brought a claim.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Master Dash on the issue of costs only.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in exercising his discretion with respect to costs against the plaintiffs.

The court noted that a relevant precedent with virtually identical facts had not been brought to the Master's attention.

Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The appellants appealed a Master's decision granting summary judgment in favour of the co-defendants in an action arising from a 2001 motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court applied the standard of review from Housen v. Nikolaisen, finding that the Master made no palpable and overriding error of fact and was correct in his application of the law.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the responding co-defendants.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

The court reviewed the parties' written submissions and largely agreed with the appellant's position, finding it fair and reasonable.

The court slightly increased the award to the main respondent to reflect its greater participation.

Costs were awarded to the respondents on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $30,000.

The appellant insurer appealed a decision finding it had a duty to indemnify the respondent insured under a commercial general liability policy for damages arising from defective concrete.

The insurer relied on the 'Your Work' and 'Rip and Tear' exclusions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the 'Your Work' exclusion was ousted by the 'subcontractor' exception because the entity that supplied the defective concrete was properly characterized as a subcontractor.

The Court also found the 'Rip and Tear' exclusion incomprehensible and therefore inapplicable.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's order requiring her to disclose a defence medical report and surveillance video obtained in a prior tort action to the respondent in her current accident benefits claim.

The motion judge had held that Rule 30.1.01 constrained the use of such evidence but not its disclosure.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the deemed undertaking rule prohibits collateral disclosure as well as collateral use to protect the privacy interests of litigants.

The court directed that any request for relief from the deemed undertaking must be brought before a motions judge under subrule 30.1.01(8).

The respondent was securing the engine cover of his pleasure craft with a bungee cord in preparation for highway transport when the cord slipped and struck the appellant in the eye.

The appellant brought a personal injury action, and the respondent sought to limit his liability under the federal Canada Shipping Act.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the allegedly negligent acts were not governed by federal maritime law, as securing a boat for highway transport is not integrally connected to navigation.

Therefore, provincial law applied, and the respondent could not claim the benefit of the federal limitation of liability.

The appellants, representing the estate of a party under disability, sought to enforce a $3.1 million settlement of an accident benefits claim.

The settlement was reached prior to the party's unexpected death but had not yet received court approval as required by Rule 7.08(1).

The application judge ruled the settlement unenforceable, finding court approval was a true condition precedent.

The Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the settlement was a binding agreement suspended pending approval.

Upon the party's death, the protective need for court approval ceased, and the contractual right to the settlement devolved to her estate, making the agreement enforceable.