Sophia Zaidi

The defendant insurer filed a request under Rule 2.1 to stay or dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal and disability benefits action, arguing it was duplicative of a prior Human Rights Tribunal application.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the existence of multiple proceedings involving similar issues is not automatically an abuse of process.

The court concluded that determining whether the action violated principles of judicial economy or finality was not appropriate for summary disposition under Rule 2.1.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision declaring her a vexatious litigant.

The court initiated a review under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the proceeding was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that the applicant's son, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant himself, was improperly attempting to represent his mother and pursue the litigation on his own behalf without her sworn authorization or proper medical evidence of her capacity.

Concluding that the application was an abuse of process and an attempt to circumvent prior orders, the Divisional Court dismissed the proceeding.

The applicant brought a motion to supplement the record of proceedings for her judicial review application with almost 5,000 pages of additional documents.

She argued these documents were 'documentary evidence filed with the tribunal' under s. 20(d) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act because she had sent them to the tribunal's registrar and executive chairs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that merely sending documents to tribunal officials or providing them during disclosure does not make them evidence in a hearing.

The applicant failed to meet the Keeprite test for supplementing the record on judicial review.

A case management conference was held to schedule an application for judicial review of several Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decisions.

The court scheduled the hearing for January 13, 2021, dismissed the application against personal respondents on consent, and set deadlines for the service and filing of the Record of Proceedings, factums, and other materials using Caselines.

The insured renewed a travel insurance policy by telephone, providing answers about medical conditions.

After hospitalization, the insurer denied the claim due to alleged misrepresentation.

The insured's estate argued that the insurer could not rely on oral statements, asserting that Statutory Condition 2 of the Insurance Act required written statements.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the insurer's practice of providing a written application for review and correction after the telephone interview satisfied the statutory requirement and the consumer protection objectives of the Insurance Act.

An employee sought long-term disability benefits from her insurer after being injured in an automobile accident.

The insurer denied her claim after two years, determining she no longer met the definition of "total disability" under the policy.

The employee filed a grievance under her union's collective agreement with her employer, which was settled.

She then commenced an action against the insurer for breach of contract and punitive damages.

The motion judge dismissed the action on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction, as the dispute arose from the collective agreement and was subject to exclusive arbitral jurisdiction.

The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the employee's entitlement to long-term disability benefits fell within the exclusive grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective agreement.