Sonya Madeline Katrycz

The plaintiffs were successful on a motion for leave to amend their Statement of Claim to add their automobile insurer as a defendant.

The plaintiffs sought costs of the motion on a partial indemnity scale, while the insurer argued no costs should be awarded.

The court found no reason to depart from the general rule that costs follow the event, noting the insurer's opposition unnecessarily added to the costs of the proceedings.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs fixed at $6,500, reducing the requested amount to reflect divided success on some issues and procedural delays caused by the plaintiffs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied a physiotherapy treatment plan on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued he suffered from chronic pain, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, including clinical notes from his family doctor and a chiropractor's disability certificate, insufficient to establish chronic pain.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were minor and, as the respondent had already paid $3,590 in benefits, the MIG limit was exhausted and the treatment plan was denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical benefits.

The adjudicator found that the insurer complied with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Relying on insurer examinations and surveillance evidence that contradicted the applicant's self-reports of impairment, the adjudicator concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and did not suffer from chronic pain caused by the accident.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the medical benefits were denied.

The claim for IRBs was also dismissed because the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment, having returned to work for five weeks immediately after the accident.

The applicant sought non-earner and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer requested that the applicant attend insurer's examinations under section 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to assess entitlement.

The applicant failed to attend multiple scheduled examinations, arguing the notices were deficient for failing to provide sufficient medical reasons.

The Tribunal found the notices validly explained that the expected recovery period was inconsistent with the soft tissue injuries diagnosed.

Because the applicant failed to attend the examinations after receiving valid notices, he was barred from proceeding with his application under section 55 of the Schedule.

The respondent's request for costs was denied as the applicant's conduct during the proceeding itself was not found to be unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their Statement of Claim to add their own automobile insurer, TD Insurance, as a defendant under the OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement, following an accident with an uninsured motorist.

The motion considered the application of the Limitations Act, 2002, to claims for indemnification against an insurer, specifically when the limitation period begins and if discoverability and due diligence apply.

The court granted leave to amend, finding triable issues regarding discoverability and due diligence, and that no non-compensable prejudice would result to TD Insurance, which had been involved in the plaintiffs' accident benefits claims since 2014.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits, which the insurer denied on the basis that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor, she demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that she suffers from chronic pain syndrome with a psychological component, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered payment for one physiotherapy treatment plan, psychological assessment and treatment, and prescription expenses, finding them reasonable and necessary to address her chronic pain.

The remaining treatment plans and assessments were denied as redundant or unnecessary, and the claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer had a genuine dispute.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from the defendant insurer's statement of defence.

The plaintiff pedestrian was struck by a motor vehicle and suffered catastrophic injuries.

The insurer, added as a defendant, pleaded that the collision was an intentional act in self-defence and included allegations about the plaintiff's past criminal record, gang affiliation, and drug involvement.

The court found these allegations to be irrelevant evidence that improperly cast a derogatory light on the plaintiff's character.

The court struck the offending paragraphs under Rule 25.11, concluding that their prejudicial effect outweighed any potential probative value.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for psychological and chiropractic treatment plans, as well as an award for unreasonable delay.

The insurer partially approved the psychological treatment but denied the remaining balances for documentation and planning, and fully denied the chiropractic treatment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of supporting medical evidence and contradictions with the applicant's self-reporting.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being assaulted by several men with a sword in a pizzeria parking lot.

He was struck while outside his vehicle and while attempting to escape inside it.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held a preliminary issue hearing and found that the direct cause of the applicant's injuries was the intervening assault, not the use or operation of his vehicle.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, as well as both parties' claims for costs and the applicant's claim for a special award.

The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing a civil action alleging misuse of personal financial information obtained from court filings in related family litigation.

The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant, a mortgage broker associated with the former spouse of one plaintiff, provided their financial information to a third‑party lender without consent, leading to the creation of a financing letter later used in court proceedings.

The defendant argued the claim disclosed no cause of action and was barred by the two‑year limitation period.

The court held that the pleadings could potentially support the tort of intrusion upon seclusion as recognized in Jones v. Tsige and that alternative legal characterizations of pleaded facts do not create a new cause of action outside the limitation period.

It was not plain and obvious that the action would fail, and the defendant’s motions for dismissal for delay and summary judgment were dismissed.