Ryan Mitchell Naimark

This motion concerned the approval of a settlement for the minor plaintiff's Family Law Act claim, arising from a vehicle collision.

The court initially sought additional evidence regarding the minor's claim for loss of care, guidance, and companionship, as the proposed $40,000 settlement was solely for the mother.

Supplementary evidence confirmed the minor's life remained undisturbed and he required no treatment despite his mother's 51-day hospitalization.

The court was satisfied the settlement was in the minor's best interests and complied with Rule 7.08, granting the approval.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of s. 37(4) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) regarding an insurer's obligation to provide reasons for terminating income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) found the applicant's claim time-barred, as Allstate's termination letter, which cited the applicant's return to full-time work, was deemed sufficient.

The Divisional Court overturned this, holding that s. 37(4) required medical reasons in all termination letters, interpreting "medical and any other reasons" conjunctively.

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal, finding the Divisional Court erred in its interpretation.

The Court of Appeal held that "and" in s. 37(4) can be interpreted in a joint or several sense, meaning medical reasons are not required if the termination is based solely on a non-medical ground, such as return to work.

The insurer's letter was found to comply with the SABS, and the limitation period was validly triggered.

Following a jury verdict awarding general damages to the plaintiff in a motor vehicle collision action, the court heard a threshold motion to determine if the plaintiff's claim surpassed the verbal threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function as a result of the accident.

Credibility issues regarding the plaintiff's post-accident work activities contributed to this finding.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for general damages was dismissed.

This endorsement addresses the determination of reasonable legal fees for counsel representing a person under disability in an accident benefits claim.

The court had previously approved a global settlement of $1.3 million for the catastrophically injured applicant, Robert Jones, after initially declining a lower proposed settlement due to concerns about its adequacy and the absence of a proper management plan.

The primary issue in this endorsement was the reasonableness of the applicant's counsel's proposed contingency fee of 23% (or 26.57% by the court's calculation) of the settlement.

Applying the principles from Henricks-Hunter, the court found the contingency agreement was not fair when made and the proposed fees were not reasonable, considering the minimal risk assumed by counsel due to the undeniable catastrophic injuries, and the fact that the settlement achieved was at the low end of entitlement.

This endorsement addresses the entitlement to costs following a medical malpractice action where the plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The parties had agreed on a quantum of $300,000 for costs.

The court found that the defendant, as the successful party, was ordinarily entitled to costs.

The plaintiff's arguments for denying costs, including the defendant's failure to make a settlement offer, alleged divided success on causation and contributory negligence, and the plaintiff's impecuniosity and tragic circumstances, were rejected.

The court emphasized that the defendant's explicit undertaking not to demand costs alleviated concerns regarding hardship, allowing the ordinary rule that costs follow the event to apply.

The court reserved the right to revisit the disposition if the defendant were to seek enforcement of the costs order.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a settlement for a minor's personal injury claim and a derivative Family Law Act claim.

The court initially declined approval due to concerns regarding the allocation of settlement funds between the minor and the litigation guardian, and the reasonableness of legal fees.

Following the submission of supplementary affidavits and a re-allocation of the settlement, the court approved the settlement, finding it to be in the minor plaintiff's best interest.

The order included specific directions for the payment of funds into court and the finalization of the draft order.

The application for court approval of a $1.1 million accident benefits settlement for a catastrophically injured person under disability was denied.

The court raised serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the proposed settlement to meet the applicant's long-term needs, the absence of a comprehensive care plan, insufficient provisions for accessible accommodation and adequate personal care, and the quantum of legal fees requested without proper documentation.

The court mandated a conference with all parties, including the Public Guardian and Trustee, to address these deficiencies and develop a suitable care plan before any settlement approval.

This appeal concerned the ownership of a cottage and the appellant daughter's liability under two mortgages.

The parents purchased a cottage in 2001, registering title in the daughter's name, with an original mortgage in their favour.

After the father's death, the mother registered a subsequent mortgage.

The mother sought a declaration of true ownership, claiming a resulting trust.

The trial judge found the cottage was a gift to the daughter but also ruled the daughter was liable under the original mortgage, though not the subsequent one.

The Court of Appeal allowed the daughter's appeal, finding the trial judge erred by making a substantive determination on mortgage liability, an issue not squarely pleaded or fully addressed by the parties at trial, thereby denying the daughter a fair opportunity to present her case on that specific issue.

This endorsement outlines a case management order for five consolidated actions arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court, acting as case management judge, set a timetable for the remaining procedural steps, including the completion of examinations for discovery, answering undertakings, conducting defence medical examinations, and scheduling a mediation.

The order also directed counsel to circulate a draft consent order for trial of the actions together and to advise on the continuation of an action against a specific insurer.

This costs endorsement followed a successful motion by the defendant regarding discovery issues.

The defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, initially claiming $3,816.92.

The plaintiff argued for nil costs, citing unfairness due to a late-served affidavit and the defendant's partial lack of success on one question, and also requested delayed payment due to a SABS settlement.

The court rejected the plaintiff's arguments for nil costs, finding the defendant's late affidavit was properly admitted.

The court adjusted the defendant's claimed fees due to redacted dockets and reduced the student's hourly rate, ultimately fixing costs at $2,995.

The court also upheld the original decision for delayed payment of costs until the final resolution of the action, noting that the costs would bear interest.

The Attorney General of Ontario appealed a Superior Court decision ordering civil forfeiture of a property located at 855 Darby Road, Welland, and associated Hells Angels Motorcycle Club paraphernalia under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

The property was owned by members of the HAMC and used as a clubhouse.

The Crown established that mortgage payments were funded in part by dues paid by HAMC members engaged in drug trafficking, and that the property was used as a meeting place where criminal activity was planned.

The Court of Appeal upheld the forfeiture order, finding the property constituted both proceeds and an instrument of unlawful activity, and that the legitimate owner and responsible owner exceptions did not apply.

The defendants brought a motion seeking a stay of the Ontario action on the basis of forum non conveniens under section 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing that Qatar was the more appropriate forum.

The action arose from allegations that airline employees failed to warn the plaintiff about local laws regarding alcohol consumption by Muslims, leading to the plaintiff’s arrest, imprisonment, and corporal punishment in Qatar after a flight incident.

Applying the principles from Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, the court held that the moving parties failed to demonstrate that Qatar was clearly a more appropriate forum.

Several factors—including the residence of the plaintiff and his medical witnesses in Ontario, the airline’s business presence in Ontario, and the plaintiff’s contractual connection to Ontario—supported maintaining the proceeding in Ontario.

The motion to stay the action was dismissed.

The Crown applied under s.16(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for forfeiture of a motorcycle club clubhouse alleged to be offence-related property following convictions of several members for drug trafficking offences.

The court held that the clubhouse facilitated drug trafficking activities, including meetings, negotiations, and at least one drug transaction, and therefore qualified as offence-related property committed in relation to the offences.

The respondent corporation failed to establish that it was an innocent owner under s.19(3), as the property was effectively controlled by members of the organization involved in the offences.

The court also rejected relief under s.19.1(3), finding forfeiture was not disproportionate given the seriousness of the offences, the role of the property, and its fortified nature.

The Crown sought forfeiture of real property under s. 16(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act following convictions of several members of a motorcycle club for drug trafficking and conspiracy offences.

Evidence showed that the property functioned as the clubhouse and operational hub for members involved in trafficking cocaine, oxycodone, and GHB, and was used for meetings, negotiations, and transactions connected to those offences.

The court held that trial evidence from the related criminal proceedings could be relied upon in the forfeiture hearing and concluded that the property was “offence‑related property” because it facilitated networking and discussions integral to the drug trafficking activities.

The respondent corporation failed to establish that it was an innocent owner or that it was sufficiently separate from the convicted offenders, many of whom were de facto shareholders or controlling members of the organization.

The court further held that forfeiture was not disproportionate given the seriousness, scale, and commercial nature of the offences and the fortified nature of the property.

The defendant airline moved to set aside a noting in default in a negligence action arising from an international flight incident.

The plaintiff alleged that airline staff served him alcohol despite the application of strict Sharia law, leading to his detention and mistreatment by authorities abroad.

The court considered the parties’ litigation conduct, including delays and confusion surrounding proposed motions challenging jurisdiction and seeking summary judgment.

Applying Rule 19.03(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the defendant had demonstrated an intention to address the claim and moved relatively promptly once default was entered.

As no prejudice to the plaintiff was established, the court exercised its discretion to set aside the noting in default, ordering each party to bear its own costs.