Ryan Mitchell Naimark

The appellant appealed an arbitration decision finding she was precluded from proceeding to arbitration because her paralegal representative had entered into a binding settlement on her behalf.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's findings that the representative had ostensible authority to settle the claim and that the two-day cooling off period began when the appellant reviewed the settlement notice with her representative.

Because the appellant failed to notify the insurer of her rejection of the settlement within the required time frame, the settlement was binding.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant physician appealed a penalty order from the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons after admitting to professional misconduct for borrowing large sums of money from patients.

The Committee had ordered a 10-month suspension, part of which could be suspended upon making restitution of $108,000.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, emphasizing deference to professional discipline committees.

Finding no error in principle and noting the appellant's extraordinary breach of trust, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for arbitration after the insurer terminated his income replacement benefits.

Shortly before the hearing, the parties settled all present issues, including the reinstatement of benefits.

The applicant requested an adjournment to a new date in case the insurer terminated benefits at the upcoming 104-week mark.

The arbitrator held that the Commission lacks jurisdiction to take reservations for potential future disputes when no actual issues remain in dispute.

The request for an adjournment was denied, and notice was given of the intention to close the file in 90 days.

The insurer brought a motion on the eve of an arbitration hearing seeking leave to amend its response to add an issue of material misrepresentation, a stay of the arbitration, and an adjournment due to alleged non-compliance with productions and the unavailability of medical witnesses.

The arbitrator denied the motion to amend, finding that the insurer had the information necessary to raise the issue months earlier and that adding it now would cause significant delay and prejudice to the insured.

The requests for a stay and adjournment were also denied, as there were no outstanding production orders and the insurer had failed to take steps to ensure its witnesses were available for cross-examination.

The insurer was ordered to pay $900 in costs.

The appellant appealed an order of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal determined that the order appealed from was interlocutory, not final.

As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was quashed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The plaintiff appealed a Master's order dismissing her claims for special damages and loss of income due to her failure to fulfill undertakings from an examination for discovery.

By the time of the appeal, the outstanding undertakings had been fulfilled.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Master's order, finding that the plaintiff's conduct was not contumelious and did not cause serious prejudice to the defendant, and that denying her a day in court would allow form to triumph over substance.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

Her paralegal representative negotiated a full and final settlement with the insurer.

The applicant later refused to sign the release, claiming she had not authorized the settlement amount.

The arbitrator found that the representative had ostensible authority to settle the claim and that a binding agreement was reached.

Because the applicant failed to rescind the settlement in writing within the two-day cooling-off period prescribed by the Settlement Regulation, she was bound by the settlement and precluded from proceeding with her arbitration.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The applicant's former representative commenced an action in Small Claims Court for caregiver and housekeeping benefits while simultaneously pursuing medical and examination benefits at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, constituting venue-splitting.

The Small Claims Court dismissed the action with costs against the representative.

The insurer brought a motion at the Commission for expenses related to its motion to address the venue-splitting and abuse of process.

The arbitrator awarded the insurer $1,000 in expenses, finding the motion was justified and holding the applicant responsible for the consequences of his former representative's mishandling of the claims.

The applicants, who were injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought to have their two separate applications for arbitration combined pursuant to Rule 30 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The insurer supported the combination to save on assessment expenses.

The arbitrator declined to combine the applications, finding that the legislative scheme contemplates a user-pay system for dispute resolution, and combining substantive, distinct claims would unfairly shift the financial burden to the general market share assessment rather than the specific users of the system.

The applicants, husband and wife, were injured in a motor vehicle accident and filed separate applications for arbitration against their insurer.

The Commission's case administrator improperly combined the applications without authority or notice.

At the pre-hearing discussion, the arbitrator ruled the administrative combination invalid but ordered the matters to be heard at the same time due to overlapping issues and identical witnesses, while remaining registered as separate proceedings pending further submissions on combining them.

The plaintiff commenced a negligence action for property damage caused by a fire shortly before the expiry of the limitation period.

During discoveries, it was revealed that the proper plaintiff was the plaintiff's corporation, not the plaintiff personally.

The plaintiff successfully moved to amend the statement of claim to substitute the corporation as the plaintiff.

The defendant appealed, arguing the amendment should not be permitted after the limitation period expired.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that Rule 5.04(2) grants the court discretion to substitute a party after a limitation period expires, provided there is no non-compensable prejudice to the defendant and special circumstances exist.