R. Tally Vanounou

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding that a binding settlement of tort and accident benefits claims was reached via email following mediation.

Shortly after the email exchange, the plaintiff was killed.

The insurer argued no settlement was reached because the plaintiff had not finalized the structure percentage or signed the settlement disclosure notice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the essential terms were agreed upon, the structure percentage was a default minimum, and the right to rescind under consumer protection legislation implies a settlement was already reached.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision finding that the parties had reached a binding settlement agreement regarding the applicant's accident benefits claims.

The insurer argued that the Tribunal erred in concluding that an email from the mediator constituted minutes of settlement and that an executed Settlement Disclosure Notice was not an essential term.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no significant legal or evidentiary mistake that would have affected the outcome, and held that the insurer was attempting to re-litigate arguments that failed at first instance.

The moving party sought leave to appeal from a lower court order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $2,500.

The plaintiff's lawyers brought a motion to remove the defendants' lawyer of record, alleging an actual or perceived conflict of interest in her joint representation of all three defendants.

The plaintiff was never a client of the challenged lawyer.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a possibility of real mischief or that the proper administration of justice required the removal.

The court also found that the motion was brought for a tactical advantage, given the nearly two-year delay in bringing it after the issue was first raised.

The applicant was injured in an ATV incident on private property and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the ATV was not an 'automobile' under the Schedule because it was being driven on the property of its owner, exempting it from insurance requirements under the Off-Road Vehicles Act.

The Tribunal found that the property owners owned the ATV at the time of the incident, as a verbal agreement to sell the ATV to the applicant's hosts had not yet resulted in a transfer of ownership under the Sale of Goods Act.

The Tribunal also held it lacked jurisdiction to grant equitable relief such as estoppel.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant insurer brought a motion for an immediate order of prohibition staying a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) proceeding pending judicial review.

The insurer sought judicial review of the LAT's decision to deny its requests to adjourn a written hearing regarding the respondent's entitlement to statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that the insurer failed to meet the RJR-MacDonald test for a stay, as there was no serious issue to be tried and no irreparable harm.

The court also held that the motion was premature, as it offended the general rule against judicial interference with ongoing administrative processes.