Robert Zigler

The defendants abandoned their motion for security for costs of the appeal.

The plaintiffs sought costs of the abandoned motion.

The court found that the plaintiffs did not conceal assets and were entitled to costs.

The court reduced the quantum of costs claimed, noting that the self-represented plaintiff was not entitled to claim fees at a lawyer's rate despite his litigation experience.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 for fees, plus disbursements and GST.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing an oppression action against the respondent Lee.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that there was evidence of conduct by Lee that could constitute oppression under s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act, including his involvement in a share purchase agreement, the removal of the deceased as Chair, and threats regarding life insurance policies.

The court held that it was inappropriate to weigh this evidence on a summary judgment motion and set aside the dismissal.

The insurer brought a motion seeking an order to compel the insured to attend an in-home occupational therapy assessment for attendant care and other disability benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that arbitrators at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario lack the statutory jurisdiction to order an insured to attend a medical examination.

Furthermore, the arbitrator held that even if jurisdiction existed, the insurer failed to demonstrate that the requested examination was reasonable and necessary, particularly given its proximity to the scheduled arbitration hearing.

The insured was awarded expenses for the motion.

The appellant appealed an arbitration decision denying her claims for continued weekly benefits and medical expenses following an incident on a TTC bus.

The arbitrator had found that the appellant's physical and psychological problems were not causally related to the accident, which was considered a minor mishap that did not materially aggravate her pre-existing conditions.

On appeal, the Director of Arbitrations held that the arbitrator made no error in weighing the evidence, including preferring contemporaneous medical records over oral testimony.

The appeal was dismissed and the arbitration order confirmed.

The applicant was involved in three separate accidents while travelling on a Toronto Transit Commission bus.

She sought statutory accident benefits for ongoing disability and medical expenses following the third accident in June 1991.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from severe pre-existing chronic pain and depression resulting from the first two accidents.

The arbitrator concluded that the third accident was minor and did not materially contribute to or aggravate her pre-existing physical or psychological condition.

The claims for ongoing weekly benefits and medical expenses were dismissed, though the applicant was awarded her reasonable arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received no-fault benefits.

The insurer subsequently required her to attend independent orthopaedic and psychiatric examinations to verify her medical condition, as her family doctor's report was ambiguous regarding the cause of her chronic pain and depression.

The applicant failed to attend both examinations, arguing through counsel that the insurer was not entitled to two examinations and expressing concern over the potential use of the medical reports in other tort actions.

The arbitrator held that the insurer reasonably required both examinations under s. 23(2) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule, and that the applicant failed to attend without reasonable justification.

The arbitrator found that the insurer was not made aware of any medical reasons preventing the applicant's attendance at the time the examinations were scheduled.