Stefan Roman Juzkiw

The applicant sought $2,254.07 for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident, along with an award for unreasonable delay and interest.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting significant gaps in treatment, pre-existing degenerative conditions, and inconsistencies between reported impairments and observed functional capacities.

The Tribunal relied on the insurer's examination reports, which concluded the applicant sustained only minor soft tissue injuries.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding parenting time for their five-year-old daughter.

The mother sought supervised access due to concerns about the father's past aggressive conduct and a recent incident resulting in criminal charges and a no-contact order.

The father sought a return to a previous schedule of unsupervised weekend overnights.

The court found that the father's past conduct raised concerns about aggression and ordered that his parenting time be supervised by the paternal grandparents every other weekend, without overnights, to ensure the child's safety and stability.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of claim and dismissing his action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, agreeing that the pleaded facts did not establish a breach of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005, nor did they provide a basis for a civil cause of action against the City.

The appeal on costs was also dismissed, with the Court finding the original costs order reasonable.

The landlord moved to quash the tenant's appeal of a Landlord and Tenant Board (LTB) eviction order.

The LTB order was made on consent, requiring the tenant to vacate the premises and pay rental arrears.

The tenant appealed, arguing procedural fairness issues regarding notice to other alleged tenants, and obtained an automatic stay of eviction.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding it was an abuse of process designed to delay eviction while rent remained unpaid.

The court also noted the tenant failed to seek the required leave to appeal a consent order under section 133 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision which found her accident-related injuries were confined to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied her disputed medical benefits.

The applicant argued under Rule 18.2(b) of the Common Rules that the adjudicator made errors of fact or law.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicant failed to identify any error of fact or law that would have changed the outcome, and that her submissions merely amounted to a request to reweigh the medical evidence.

The moving parties, former tenants, sought an extension of time to appeal an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board requiring them to pay rent arrears, as well as an order refusing to extend the time for review.

The court applied the four-part test for extending the time to appeal and found that the moving parties failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit, provided no reasonable explanation for their inordinate delay, and failed to show any merit to their proposed appeal.

The motion was dismissed with costs.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued her pre-existing conditions, including chronic pain and psychological impairments, were exacerbated by the accident and prevented recovery under the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her physical or psychological injuries fell outside the MIG or that her pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG limits.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought costs of $15,975 following a successful summary judgment motion regarding a failed real estate transaction.

The plaintiff argued for partial indemnity costs up to the date of a Rule 49 offer to settle and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, citing the defendant's unsubstantiated allegations of fraud.

The defendant argued for reduced costs due to limited means and alleged partial success.

The court awarded the plaintiff the full $15,975 claimed, finding the Rule 49 offer valid and the defendant's conduct in raising unproven fraud allegations justified an enhanced costs award.

The plaintiff brought an action for injuries sustained after slipping and falling on a retaining wall dividing the parking lots of a KFC and a TD Bank.

The remaining defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action on liability.

The court found that the barrier was intended to block vehicles, not for pedestrian crossing, and there was no evidence of regular pedestrian use that would create a duty to maintain it for that purpose.

Furthermore, the plaintiff's evidence regarding the fall was contradictory and unreliable.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action.

The parties settled a commercial tenancy dispute prior to the hearing of their application and cross-application.

However, the court issued an endorsement to address a false statement made by the applicant in a sworn affidavit regarding his travel to China.

After receiving an explanation that the applicant had indeed travelled to China but on a different airline and date than sworn, the court declined to pursue a contempt hearing.

The court cautioned that false statements in affidavits are taken seriously and could preclude equitable remedies such as relief against forfeiture.

This decision addresses the costs of an application brought by the applicant under the Co-operative Corporations Act, which was dismissed due to the applicant's inability to proceed and lack of proper leave.

The applicant, Angelique Codina, sought injunctive and other relief but failed to obtain the required court order under s. 68(2) of the Act before commencing the action.

The application was adjourned multiple times due to the applicant's incarceration and her inability to effectively pursue the matter or find other co-op members to assume carriage.

The court dismissed the application on procedural grounds and considered the respondents' request for costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondents, declining their request for substantial indemnity, as the dismissal was procedural and not on the merits of the allegations.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking damages for breach of an agreement of purchase and sale (APS) after the defendant failed to close the transaction.

The defendant's statement of defence alleged fraud or misrepresentation regarding property subdivision, but his affidavit on the motion contradicted this, claiming forgery and incapacity due to medication.

The court found the motion was not premature, ruled the defendant's expert evidence inadmissible due to non-compliance with Rule 53.03, and held the defendant was bound by admissions in his statement of defence.

Finding no genuine issue requiring a trial, the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, awarding damages for breach of contract.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing the applicant was precluded from proceeding under s. 55(1) of the Schedule because insurer examination reports had not yet been completed.

The adjudicator found no evidence that the applicant failed to attend the scheduled examinations or provide requested documentation.

The adjudicator held that waiting for the completion of reports prior to applying to the Tribunal would prejudice the applicant, and the application was not precluded.

The applicant brought a motion to prove a holograph will in solemn form and to be appointed Estate Trustee without an administration bond.

The deceased, who had terminal cancer, wrote a brief note in Farsi leaving his wealth to the applicant, his close friend and caregiver.

The court found the document to be a valid holograph will under section 6 of the Succession Law Reform Act.

However, the court dismissed the motion to dispense with the administration bond without prejudice, citing inconsistencies in the applicant's evidence regarding the value of the estate and its debts.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for assistive devices and psychological treatment.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide medical evidence proving the assistive devices were reasonable and necessary, and failed to submit the psychological treatment plan into evidence to justify the disputed balance.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The Plaintiff sought to amend an existing litigation timetable due to COVID-19 disruptions.

The Defendant opposed remote examinations for discovery, argued for incomplete documentary production, and sought to bring a motion for security for costs.

The court ordered the delivery of sworn affidavits of documents, mandated remote examinations for discovery and mediation if requested, and directed that any motion for security for costs be brought after discoveries.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian and sought statutory accident benefits for physical and psychological injuries.

The insurer limited her medical and rehabilitation benefits to $3,500, arguing her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant claimed she suffered from chronic pain, a nerve impingement, and a psychological condition (PTSD) that removed her from the minor injury limit.

The Tribunal found that her physical soft tissue injuries had resolved and rejected her psychological expert's report because the expert had never actually met her.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and dismissed her claims for further medical benefits and assessments.

The parties brought cross-motions regarding child support, access, and the sale of jointly owned properties.

The respondent father sought to reduce his child support obligations and obtain unsupervised access, while the applicant mother sought to strike his pleadings for non-compliance with prior orders and obtain carriage of the sale of their properties.

The court dismissed the father's motion to vary support, finding he failed to prove a material change in income, and ordered that his access remain supervised due to anger management issues and the children's special needs.

The court ordered the father to pay arrears from his share of the property sale proceeds and adjourned the mother's motion to strike his pleadings to allow him a final opportunity to provide outstanding disclosure.

The defendant brought a motion to transfer the action from the Central West Region (Milton) to the Toronto Region.

The underlying action involved a commercial lease dispute regarding premises located in Toronto.

The court applied the holistic balancing test under Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the proceeding had no rational connection to the Central West Region, the court granted the motion and ordered the action transferred to Toronto.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as his pain did not practically prevent him from engaging in his daily activities and there were significant pre-existing conditions from a prior workplace accident.

However, the Tribunal found the chronic pain assessment to be reasonable and necessary given the applicant's consistent reports of pain.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the assessment and applicable interest, but denied non-earner benefits.