Stefan Roman Juzkiw

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including funding for hyperbaric oxygen therapy and two catastrophic impairment assessments.

The respondent denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the hyperbaric oxygen therapy was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of medical evidence supporting its effectiveness for her injuries and deeming it experimental.

The Tribunal also denied the catastrophic impairment assessments, finding the applicant failed to justify the need for multiple assessments in single disciplines and the duplication of services across the two treatment plans.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $2,078.10 for the unapproved portion of a treatment plan for physiotherapy services, which included yoga therapy.

The respondent had partially approved the plan, paying the maximum hourly rate for unregulated providers for the yoga sessions.

The Tribunal found that the yoga therapy fell under unregulated provider expenses and was subject to the maximum hourly rate of $58.19.

The Tribunal also found no evidence to support an additional $200 reassessment cost.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for occupational therapy (a SPECT scan) and optometric services following a motor vehicle accident, along with interest and a special award.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The medical evidence, including normal MRI results and a lack of referrals, did not support the need for a SPECT scan or functional assessment.

The claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a four-day trial concerning parenting and child support orders for a 5-year-old child.

The court analyzed the parties' offers to settle, success on various parenting and support issues, and unreasonable conduct during litigation.

Despite the mother’s partial success on child support, the court found her conduct unreasonable, including making unsupported allegations and filing excessive materials, which rebutted her presumptive entitlement to costs.

Ultimately, the court ordered that neither party pay costs to the other, reflecting the divided success and conduct of the parties.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a prior decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs of $2,500 payable to the responding parties.

This trial resolved a high-conflict dispute between unmarried parents regarding the parenting arrangements and child support for their five-year-old son.

The court determined that it was in the child's best interests to have his primary residence with the mother, while increasing the father's parenting time to two out of every three weekends.

Due to the parents' severe communication issues and mutual distrust, the court declined to award sole or joint decision-making responsibility, instead allocating specific decision-making authority for education, medical care, and travel.

Additionally, the court imputed an annual income of $41,600 to the father, ordering him to pay ongoing child support of $377 per month and fixing retroactive child support arrears at $3,081.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file her submissions by the deadline set in the Case Conference Report and Order.

The Tribunal excluded the applicant's late submissions and evidence, resulting in the dismissal of her claims for the treatment plans.

The Tribunal awarded $300 in costs to the respondent due to the applicant's unreasonable conduct in failing to comply with the Tribunal's orders and providing no explanation for the delay.

The plaintiff, Continental Homes Inc., sought costs following a trial where it was awarded $23,279.50 in lien and breach of contract damages, and successfully defeated the defendants' $63,516.77 set-off and counterclaim.

The court considered the plaintiff's limited success (14% of claimed damages), the plaintiff's reasonable offers to settle, and the conduct of both parties, including the plaintiff's significant delay in filing costs outlines and the defendants' counsel's violation of page limits.

The court awarded the plaintiff $20,000 in partial indemnity costs and clarified the correct prejudgment interest rate and commencement date for the damages awarded.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including treatment plans for physiotherapy, chiropractic services, medical services, and multiple assessments (CAT, SPECT, QEEG).

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to most of the treatment plans, as some were submitted beyond the 260-week post-accident limit and others were duplicative or lacked sufficient evidence of reasonableness and necessity.

However, the Tribunal allowed $2,000 for a neurological assessment, $200 for the completion of an OCF-19, and $176 for transportation expenses, noting objective evidence of potential brain dysfunction.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue benefits but denied an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

This case involved a construction contract dispute where the plaintiff, Continental Homes Inc., sued the defendants, 2646576 Ontario Inc. (owner) and 8682470 Canada Inc. o/a Chang Xin Construction (general contractor), for breach of contract and a claim for lien.

The defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract.

The court found that an enforceable subcontract existed between Continental and Chang.

The court determined that Chang fundamentally breached the subcontract by failing to pay the required deposit and wrongfully terminating the contract.

The defendants' alleged delays by Continental were found to be the fault of the defendants due to delays in obtaining locates and surveys.

The court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim and awarded Continental $23,279.50 in damages for breach of contract and confirmed its lien for the same amount, to be paid from the cash security.

Continental's claim for lost profit and business opportunities was denied due to lack of evidence.

The plaintiff, an insurance company, sought to extend a Mareva Injunction against multiple defendants involved in a sophisticated mortgage fraud scheme.

The plaintiff had previously issued a loss payment under a title insurance policy after a fraudulent mortgage was declared void.

The Mareva Injunction, initially granted ex parte, froze accounts of several defendants who received fraudulent mortgage proceeds.

The court found a strong prima facie case of fraud, sufficient inference of risk of dissipation, and that the balance of convenience favored extending the injunction.

The court also addressed the needs of a self-represented defendant, Xuan Dieu Vy Nguyen, who opposed the motion, by ensuring access to living expenses and directing an oral hearing for future default judgment motions to allow her to present her case.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision evicting them for non-payment of rent, arguing they were denied procedural fairness when the Board refused their adjournment request.

The tenants claimed the refusal prevented them from presenting repair invoices for set-off and from properly proposing a payment plan.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's refusal of the adjournment was a proper exercise of discretion.

The Court also held that the Board did not err in rejecting the proposed payment plan or in applying its disclosure rules to exclude the repair invoices.

Finally, the Court confirmed that the Board's monetary jurisdiction limit does not apply to the amount of arrears a tenant must pay to void an eviction order.

The plaintiffs (landlords) were entirely successful in a landlord and tenant dispute against the defendants, who had failed to pay rent for three years and gamed the system by fabricating a tenancy for an unidentified spouse.

The court awarded the plaintiffs costs of $45,842.95 on a substantial indemnity basis.

Furthermore, the court found that the defendants' lawyer had allowed his client to abuse the administration of justice and ordered the lawyer to personally pay the costs if the defendants failed to do so within thirty days.

The plaintiff landlords brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant tenant corporation and its principal for over $300,000 in rent arrears and possession of the residential premises.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to set aside their noting in default.

The court found the defendants had engaged in a bad faith campaign to game the system, occupying the premises rent-free for three years while illegally using it for business purposes.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the noting in default, pierced the corporate veil to hold the principal jointly and severally liable, granted default judgment for the rent arrears, awarded $100,000 in punitive damages, and ordered immediate eviction.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for default judgment in a landlord and tenant dispute involving approximately $300,000 in rent arrears.

The defendants resisted and moved to set aside the noting of default.

On the day of the hearing, the parties presented a proposed consent order to terminate the tenancy and grant a writ of possession.

The court declined to issue the order because it mistakenly stated that one of the defendants had been noted in default, failed to properly identify that defendant, and did not address an outstanding counterclaim.

The motion was adjourned to allow the parties to either argue the motion on its merits or resolve the issues.

This endorsement concerns a motion by Chicago Title Insurance Company to continue an interim ex parte Mareva injunction related to mortgage fraud proceeds.

The court found a strong prima facie case and a significant risk of dissipation of funds, which remained unchallenged by the defendants.

The injunction was continued, and the motion adjourned for further proceedings.

The Bank of Montreal (Applicant) sought approval of the Receiver's (KSV) conduct, fees, and discharge, along with an order for costs against the Respondents (Can United Consulting Corporation, Facilitate Settlement, and other related debtor corporations) and personally against Mr. Kai Wu, the directing mind of the debtor corporations.

The Debtors had borrowed $2.1 million under a federal pandemic assistance program (HASCAP) and failed to repay.

The Business Development Bank of Canada (BDC) repaid the principal to BMO and stepped into BMO's shoes for enforcement.

The Debtors and Mr. Wu showed limited cooperation with the Receiver, failed to provide financial records, and transferred significant funds for personal use.

The court approved the Receiver's conduct, fees, and discharge.

Crucially, the court found Mr. Wu's conduct amounted to an abuse of process due to his persistent failure to comply with court orders and cooperate with the Receiver, despite repeated adjournments and undertakings.

Consequently, the court awarded $50,000 in costs against the Respondents and personally against Mr. Wu.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to appeal two Small Claims Court decisions that vacated writs of seizure and sale, alleging the respondent relied on fraudulent debt settlement agreements with forged signatures.

At the hearing, the respondent conceded that the moving parties could bring a motion in Small Claims Court to set aside the orders for fraud under Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and agreed not to raise delay.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for an extension of time, directing the parties to proceed with motions in the Small Claims Court where the conflicting evidence could be better adjudicated.

This decision addresses costs following a bifurcated trial where the applicant successfully challenged the validity of her 2017 divorce on grounds of lack of notice and improper date of separation.

While the applicant won this "battle" and beat her offer to settle, the court noted that her success on the date of separation issue (finding parties never lived together, thus separation date was marriage date in 2013) might lead to her equalization claim being barred by a different, six-year limitation period.

The judge fixed the amounts of costs for both parties (applicant on a substantial indemnity basis, respondent on a partial indemnity basis) but ordered them "in the cause" deferring the final award until the ultimate resolution of the main equalization application and the applicability of the second limitation period.

This case involved a trial of an issue to determine the validity of a 2017 default divorce judgment and the parties' separation date, which impacted the applicant's property claims.

The applicant, Ms. Sha, argued the divorce was invalid due to lack of service and a false separation date.

The respondent, Mr. Buchan, claimed it was a consensual divorce following a sham marriage for immigration purposes.

The court found both parties' evidence largely untruthful and inconsistent, making it difficult to ascertain the true facts.

However, the court concluded that Mr. Buchan failed to prove personal service of the divorce application on Ms. Sha.

While Ms. Sha failed to prove cohabitation, leading the court to conclude the parties separated on their marriage date (July 18, 2013), the divorce order was set aside due to lack of proper service, preventing the limitation period for property claims from running.