Sharon Warden

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits and various treatment plans.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence by the deadline and did not file a Notice of Withdrawal.

The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Statutory Procedures Act and dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving entitlement to the claimed benefits.

The applicant, a South Korean citizen in Canada on a temporary Working Holiday visa, was struck by an unidentified motor vehicle and sought statutory accident benefits from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The Fund denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not "ordinarily resident" in Ontario at the time of the accident, as required by s. 25(1) of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ties to Ontario were temporary, she did not have a permanent residence, and she had not demonstrated an intention to remain in Ontario permanently.

Furthermore, there was no evidence that South Korea offered reciprocal coverage to Ontario residents.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Ontario and dismissed the application.

The appellant, Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, appealed an arbitrator's decision concerning a reimbursement claim against the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

Wawanesa sought reimbursement for Statutory Accident Benefits paid to an individual involved in a snowmobile accident, whose vehicle was later found to be uninsured.

The arbitrator partially denied Wawanesa's claim and ordered Wawanesa to pay the Fund's legal and administrative costs, finding that Wawanesa had grossly mishandled its adjusting responsibilities and failed to hold benefits in trust as required by SABS provisions due to a pending criminal charge.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed Wawanesa's appeal, upholding the arbitrator's findings that there were no errors of law or palpable and overriding errors in the application of the law to the facts, including the arbitrator's discretion in awarding costs.

The applicant sought medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits and requested an insurer's examination, which the applicant failed to attend.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with her application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to attend the required examination and provided no explanation for her non-attendance.

Consequently, pursuant to section 55(1)2 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, the applicant was precluded from proceeding with her application.

Following a previous decision awarding the Estate Trustee full indemnity costs, the court issued this endorsement to correct the costs amount.

The court noted that further costs had been incurred and a subsequent draft order with updated costs had been filed on consent.

The Estate Trustee's full indemnity costs were updated to $19,907.93.

The Estate Trustee brought a motion for directions regarding the payment of unsecured debts allegedly owed by the deceased to his son and son-in-law.

The debts arose from unpaid wages and financial assistance provided to the deceased over many years.

One of the beneficiaries opposed the payment, arguing the claims were statute-barred and lacked corroboration.

The court found that the deceased had acknowledged the debts and intended to repay them upon the sale of his property.

The court also found that the claims were not statute-barred as they were contingent loans, and alternatively, the son and son-in-law were entitled to the funds on the basis of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.

The court ordered the debts to be paid from the estate.

The applicant, a pedestrian injured in a 2013 motor vehicle accident, sought medical benefits for physical rehabilitation and chiropractic treatment from the respondent.

The respondent denied the benefits based on an insurer's examination which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to prove the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that a 1994 cohabitation agreement was not valid in determining financial and support issues arising from the parties' final separation in 2012.

The parties had separated for more than 90 days in 1995, triggering the agreement's disposition provisions, but later reconciled, married, and cohabited until 2012.

The court held that the agreement was discharged by the triggering event in 1995 and, because it was not reinstated or amended in writing upon reconciliation, it had no application to the 2012 separation.

The applicant's motion was granted and the respondent's cross-motion to enforce the agreement was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for damages equivalent to a judgment the respondent insurer had obtained against his wife.

The trial judge found that the appellant and his wife had fraudulently conveyed their jointly held matrimonial home to the appellant alone to defeat the respondent's claim.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's finding of fraudulent intent based on the 'badges of fraud' and the shifting burden of proof.

The Court also affirmed that under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Assignments and Preferences Act, the appellant held the proceeds of the subsequent sale of the property in trust for the respondent creditor.