Stanley Razenberg

The respondent insurer brought a preliminary issue motion to stay the applicant's claim for post-104 week attendant care benefits pending the outcome of a FSCO appeal regarding pre-104 week benefits, and to exclude the FSCO arbitration transcripts.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that the issues before the Tribunal and FSCO were distinct, related to different time periods, and were based on different assessment forms.

The Tribunal also allowed the FSCO transcripts into evidence as prima facie relevant.

The applicant's request for costs was dismissed as there was no evidence of bad faith by the respondent.

Following an arbitration hearing where the applicant achieved mixed success, including an award for ongoing income replacement benefits, the applicant sought expenses.

The arbitrator considered the criteria under section 12 of Regulation 664 and awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs.

The applicant was awarded $8,459.47 in fees plus HST, and $17,191.54 in disbursements, for a total of $26,750.74.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders, non-earner benefits, and attendant care benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant was malingering.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's expert evidence due to flawed methodology and inconsistencies, preferring the insurer's expert and surveillance evidence which showed the applicant engaging in normal daily activities.

The arbitrator also found the accident involved minor forces comparable to everyday activities, making the claimed severe impairments implausible.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision dismissing her claims for statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator had denied her request for an adjournment to seek new counsel after her previous counsel withdrew shortly before the hearing, and dismissed her claims when she left the hearing room.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding that the late delivery of surveillance evidence and the recent withdrawal of counsel meant an adjournment should have been granted.

Furthermore, the appellant's ongoing efforts to retain counsel even after leaving the hearing room demonstrated she had not abandoned her claim.

The matter was remitted to arbitration for a new hearing.

The applicants sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate decision that upheld an arbitrator's exclusion of the applicant's documents and witnesses due to late service, and ordered costs personally against the applicant's lawyers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no denial of procedural fairness in the refusal to allow an affidavit explaining the delay or in the exclusion of non-expert witnesses.

The court also held that the order for costs against the lawyers personally was reasonable given the blatant disregard of the procedural rules.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits, the insurer sought its arbitration expenses of $16,957.85, arguing they should be awarded personally against the applicant's counsel due to delayed communication and late disclosure.

The arbitrator declined to award costs personally against counsel, finding the conduct did not meet the threshold of extreme caution required by Young v. Young.

However, the arbitrator found the insurer was entitled to its reasonable expenses from the applicant, fixing the amount at $11,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, based on the applicable Legal Aid tariff rates.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the Insurer, including income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and payment for various medical treatments and assessments.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant suffered from chronic pain and functional limitations, exacerbated by his functional illiteracy, which rendered him substantially unable to perform his pre-accident employment and completely unable to engage in any suitable employment post-104 weeks.

The income replacement benefit claim was granted.

The claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed, as the Applicant's family and friends did not suffer an economic loss, and the evidence did not support the need for 24/7 supervision.

Claims for medical treatments and assessments were partially granted based on reasonableness and necessity.

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

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding that post-accident funds provided by the applicant's company to her service provider were deductible employment income.

The claim for attendant care benefits was also dismissed because the service providers were not healthcare professionals and did not suffer an economic loss, and the expenses were not deemed incurred under s. 3(8) of the SABS.

The arbitrator granted claims for rehabilitative coaching, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and a nutritional assessment, but denied claims for assistive devices, attendant care assessments, and a speech language assessment.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine whether the Applicant was injured as a result of an 'accident' as defined in section 3(1) of the Schedule.

At the hearing, the Insurer conceded that the Applicant was indeed injured as a result of an accident.

The arbitrator ordered that the Applicant was injured as a result of an accident and scheduled a full hearing on the merits.

Allstate Insurance Company of Canada brought a motion seeking to dismiss Jamie Patino's application as premature or an abuse of process, or alternatively, to narrow its scope.

Patino's application sought declarations regarding Allstate's duty to defend and indemnify him following a motor vehicle accident, particularly concerning an alleged material misrepresentation about vehicle use.

The court denied Allstate's motion to dismiss, finding the application neither premature nor an abuse of process if strictly limited to specific legal questions.

The court ordered that the application would focus on whether Allstate could deny indemnification despite not voiding the policy, and whether a finding of misrepresentation would alter this.

Leave was granted for Patino to amend his application to seek declarations regarding his right to counsel of choice and to direct his defence in a related action.

The applicant was catastrophically injured in a snowmobile accident and claimed attendant care benefits for services provided by her mother.

The insurer disputed the claims for periods when the applicant was hospitalized and when she lived with her boyfriend, and argued that a 2014 amendment to the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule limited the benefit to the mother's economic loss.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims for the hospital and boyfriend periods, finding the applicant failed to prove economic loss and actual receipt of services, respectively.

However, the arbitrator held that the 2014 amendment did not apply retrospectively to limit the applicant's vested right to attendant care benefits.

Interest was awarded on overdue amounts, but the claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration proceeding regarding the applicant's catastrophic impairment claim until she attended a neuropsychological independent medical examination (IME).

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing the IME was not reasonably necessary as no brain injury was alleged, she had already attended multiple psychiatric IMEs, and the insurer had alleged fraud and terminated all benefits.

The arbitrator applied the factors from Bogic and Ramalingam, finding that while the insurer has a right to request IMEs, the balance of fairness favored the applicant.

The arbitrator noted the proximity of the motion to the scheduled hearing and the potential prejudice of delaying the resolution of the catastrophic impairment and fraud issues.

The motion for a stay was dismissed, and the hearing was ordered to proceed as scheduled.

The defendants appealed a Master's decision dismissing their motion for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff claimed permanent impairment of his left arm from a motor vehicle accident, but the defendants sought medical records relating to prior injuries to the same arm in 2004 and 2006.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the Master erred in law by weighing evidence to determine relevance rather than relying on the pleadings, which clearly put the pre-existing condition in issue.

The plaintiff was ordered to produce the requested medical records.

The plaintiff's former lawyers brought a motion for leave to appeal a Master's order requiring them to personally pay costs thrown away and motion costs.

The costs were awarded after a law clerk inadvertently failed to book an examination for discovery.

The Superior Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the Master failed to apply the second step of the Galganov test, which requires extreme caution before ordering costs against a lawyer personally for an innocent error.

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s negligence action arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the claim was commenced outside the two‑year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued the claim against the municipality was not discoverable until receipt of a police accident report revealing potential roadway maintenance issues and identifying the proper municipal authority.

The court held the plaintiff failed to rebut the statutory presumption of discoverability and did not exercise reasonable diligence in identifying potential defendants, noting a 17‑month delay in obtaining the accident report.

The action was therefore statute‑barred.

The court also found that commencing a second action rather than seeking to amend the existing action to substitute the proper municipality constituted an abuse of process.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits.

The insurer scheduled multiple section 44 examinations, which the applicant refused to attend because the insurer did not provide a Cantonese interpreter accredited by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The insurer offered other qualified interpreters, but the applicant maintained her refusal.

The arbitrator found that the absence of a MAG-certified interpreter was not a reasonable explanation for failing to attend the examinations, as there is no legislative requirement for such specific accreditation.

Consequently, the applicant was precluded from proceeding to mediation on the issues in dispute.