Silene Malhao

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits.

The insurer designated him as catastrophically impaired but disputed the quantum of the benefit, arguing he was self-employed and entitled to $185.00 per week.

The applicant argued he was an employee entitled to $400.00 per week.

The Tribunal applied the Sagaz test and found that the applicant was an employee, as his hours and duties were controlled by the employer, he wore a company uniform, and he did not operate his own business.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay income replacement benefits of $400.00 per week from October 20, 2020, ongoing, plus interest.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order dismissing her motion to set aside a default judgment.

The underlying claim alleged she used her position at a bank to induce the plaintiff into a $30,000 fraudulent investment.

The Divisional Court upheld the Deputy Judge's finding that the appellant failed to present a meritorious defence, as her evidence merely asserted the transaction was with her husband and did not address the specific allegations of inducement pleaded against her.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.