Rosemary Claire Book

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to income replacement benefits and medical benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the accident was not a necessary cause of the applicant's right hip osteoarthritis aggravation or his psychological impairments, which were instead attributed to a post-accident stroke and subsequent loss of his driver's licence.

Consequently, the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The claims for income replacement benefits and medical assessments were also dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable, necessary, or caused by the accident.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits from the respondent insurer for two treatment plans (OCF-18s) proposing chiropractic treatment, massage therapy, and physiotherapy.

The insurer denied the plans and argued at the hearing that they were invalid because they lacked physical signatures as required by s. 38(3) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal rejected the signature argument, noting the insurer failed to raise it prior to written submissions and the applicant subsequently provided signed copies.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to the massage therapy portion of the first treatment plan, as it was supported by contemporaneous medical records from her family physician and neurologist.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for chiropractic treatment and the entirety of the second treatment plan, finding they were not supported by the medical evidence and that the applicant's condition had not improved despite ongoing chiropractic care.

Interest was awarded on the approved benefits.

The plaintiff was entirely unsuccessful in her summary judgment motion against the defendant Port Dalhousie Vitalization Corporation (PDVC).

PDVC sought partial and substantial indemnity costs, as well as disbursements, having made two Rule 49 offers to settle which were not accepted.

The court, applying Rule 57 principles, found many of the defendant's claimed fees excessive and unnecessary, particularly regarding the involvement of two counsel, hours spent on boilerplate pleadings, and an aggressive stance against a pro forma motion to amend pleadings.

The court also reduced claimed disbursements, disallowing a previous costs award against the defendant and significantly reducing an orthopaedic report fee and a legal research fee.

Considering the plaintiff's personal circumstances and the novel, though unsuccessful, legal argument, the court awarded the defendant $20,000.00 in all-inclusive costs, a significant reduction from the $65,402.27 sought.

The plaintiff, Kristen Cass, sought summary judgment for declarations of liability against Port Dalhousie Vitalization Corporation (PDVC), the landlord of a tavern where she slipped and fell.

Cass argued PDVC was an "occupier" under the Occupier's Liability Act, a third-party beneficiary to the lease's insurance provisions, and negligent for failing to monitor the tenant's insurance obligations.

PDVC, in turn, sought summary judgment to dismiss the action.

The court found PDVC was not an "occupier" as it lacked physical possession or control over the tavern area and had no maintenance responsibilities for that part of the premises.

The court also determined that Cass was not a third-party beneficiary to the lease's insurance clauses, as there was no intention by the contracting parties (landlord and tenant) to confer such a benefit on strangers, and the third-party beneficiary exception serves as a "shield" against liability, not a "sword" to make claims.

Furthermore, the court found no causal connection between PDVC's alleged failure to monitor insurance and Cass's fall, and no duty of care existed given the "carefree" lease and lack of symbiotic relationship.

The plaintiff's motion for declaratory relief was dismissed, and the defendant PDVC's motion for dismissal of the action was granted.

The plaintiff, Timothy Bonello, was severely injured in a tug-of-war game at Gores Landing Marina, resulting in hand amputation.

He sued the Marina and its owner-operators for negligence under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The defendants brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the main action.

The court granted the motion, finding that the defendants met the reasonable standard of care.

The Marina was not obliged to prohibit recreational activities or supervise tenant-organized events, nor could it have reasonably foreseen the specific circumstances leading to the injury, such as the use of a looped rope or the lack of rudimentary safety equipment.

Following a jury award for general damages and future chiropractic care, the court addressed several post-trial issues.

These included the applicable statutory deductible, the rate of prejudgment interest, whether future chiropractic care costs should be deducted from the plaintiff's accident benefits settlement, a request for a remedial penalty against the defendant insurer for its conduct during mediation, and the final costs award.

The court determined that the $30,000 deductible applied (as the jury award predated the statutory amendment), prejudgment interest was 5% per annum (as it is a substantive matter not to be applied retrospectively), and future chiropractic care was not deductible from accident benefits.

The court declined to impose a remedial penalty, finding the insurer's mediation participation meaningful despite its aggressive stance.

Ultimately, the plaintiff was awarded costs of $106,906.90.