Simon Joseph Adler

The appellant, the directing mind of the plaintiff company, appealed two costs orders made against him personally.

The motion judge had awarded substantial indemnity costs against the appellant for both the dismissal of the company's claim and the failure of the appellant's summary judgment motion on the defendants' counterclaim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the costs order relating to the company's claim because the company was not a sham or 'man of straw' used to shield the appellant from liability.

However, the court upheld the costs order relating to the counterclaim, as the appellant was a party to that proceeding and the summary judgment motion was unreasonable.

The appellant appealed an order striking their statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that while the plea of fraudulent misrepresentation was untenable, the factual allegations were capable of establishing an absence of good faith.

The court held that the novel cause of action in negligence was not plain and obvious to fail, and permitted it to proceed.

The responding employers requested reconsideration of a prior Board decision that dismissed their motion to dismiss the union's related employer and sale of business applications for post-application delay.

The request was based on the union's failure to disclose a settlement agreement with certain responding parties, which the employers characterized as akin to a 'Mary Carter agreement'.

The Board found that while the agreement should have been disclosed, its existence would not have affected the Board's earlier decision regarding post-application delay.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant sought weekly income benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming he was continuously disabled from returning to his pre-accident employment or any suitable alternative due to physical and psychological injuries.

The insurer terminated benefits and sought repayment of overpaid amounts related to Canada Pension Plan deductions.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claims, finding him not credible due to significant inconsistencies in his medical history, misrepresentations to health practitioners, and surveillance evidence demonstrating physical capabilities far exceeding his reported limitations.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant failed to establish that the accident materially contributed to his ongoing complaints or that he met the disability tests under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer's claim for repayment was also dismissed.