Silene Maria 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.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's slip and fall action, the successful defendant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, arguing the plaintiff acted unreasonably during mediation and pre-trials.

The court found that while the plaintiff's evidence involved exaggeration and his refusal to compromise was unreasonable, his behaviour did not rise to the level of reprehensible conduct required for elevated costs.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs in the amount of $139,821.66.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's personal injury action, the successful defendant sought substantial indemnity costs based on the plaintiff's fabricated claims and an unaccepted offer to settle.

The court held that Rule 49.10 does not permit substantial indemnity costs for a successful defendant, and the plaintiff's conduct did not rise to the level of reprehensible conduct required to justify elevated costs.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs in the amount of $193,043.98.

The plaintiff brought two negligence actions: one against the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and its driver for a bus door incident, and another against the City of Toronto for a slip and fall on an icy sidewalk.

The court dismissed both actions, finding no negligence on the part of the defendants and significant credibility issues with the plaintiff regarding his injuries, pain, and efforts to return to work.

The court also found that the plaintiff's alleged psychological injuries were not causally linked to the TTC accident or were too remote.