Stefan Roman Juzkiw

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal from a Small Claims Court order, the successful defendant sought partial indemnity costs of $5,315.

The plaintiff objected to the late delivery of the bill of costs and requested costs in his own favour despite being unsuccessful.

The court rejected the plaintiff's objections, finding no prejudice from the delay, and awarded the defendant costs fixed at $3,750 all inclusive.

Following a preliminary issue hearing where it was determined that the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' within the meaning of the Schedule, the successful insurer sought its expenses of the arbitration.

The insurer claimed $24,182.62 in costs.

The arbitrator considered the criteria under section 282(11) of the Insurance Act and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

Noting that the applicant was an ODSP recipient and that the insurer's claimed hours were excessive given the nature of the preliminary issue, the arbitrator reduced the legal fees to a 2:1 ratio based on the Legal Aid Tariff.

The applicant was ordered to pay $3,028.22 in expenses.

The applicant withdrew his application for statutory accident benefits dispute resolution.

The respondent insurer brought a motion for costs, arguing the application was baseless and the withdrawal caused unnecessary expense.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the costs motion because it was filed before the withdrawal.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion for costs, holding that withdrawing an application does not inherently constitute unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or bad faith conduct under Rule 19.1, and costs are not meant to compensate for inconvenience.

The insurer was entirely successful at the arbitration hearing regarding the applicant's claim for accident benefits.

The insurer subsequently sought its expenses for the arbitration.

The arbitrator considered the criteria under the Expense Regulation, noting the insurer's 100% success and an unaccepted Rule 76 offer to settle.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's argument that his limited financial means due to incarceration should preclude an expense award, as ability to pay is not a listed criterion.

The arbitrator reduced the insurer's claimed legal fees and disbursements, awarding a total of $4,851.23 in expenses payable by the applicant.

The applicant claimed he was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the injuries resulted from a physical altercation with the driver of an SUV, not from the use or operation of an automobile.

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony inconsistent with the police and emergency room reports, which indicated no physical contact between the SUV and the bicycle.

The arbitrator concluded that the physical altercation was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, meaning the injuries were not directly caused by the use or operation of a motor vehicle.

The application was dismissed as there was no 'accident' within the meaning of the Schedule.

The landlord brought a motion to lift the automatic stay of an eviction order, for security for costs, and to dismiss the tenant's appeal.

The tenant, who had not paid rent for eight months, requested an adjournment, which was denied.

The court lifted the automatic stay, finding the appeal appeared frivolous and vexatious, and ordered the tenant to post $2,500 as security for costs and pay $2,970 in costs for the motion.

The respondent moved to dismiss the application for statutory accident benefits, arguing the issues had already been decided by the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

At the preliminary motion hearing, the applicant's counsel requested an adjournment due to insufficient notice from the Tribunal.

During the hearing, the applicant discharged her counsel and requested an adjournment to retain new representation.

The adjudicator granted the adjournment, noting the Tribunal's error in communication and finding no prejudice to the respondent, while setting a schedule for potential costs submissions.

The insurer brought a motion for third-party production of documents from various entities, including a treatment facility, Assessment Direct.

The insurer alleged that the facility was involved in a fraudulent scheme and sought extensive internal records.

The arbitrator ordered production of the applicant's clinical notes and records, employment files, and OHIP summaries.

However, the arbitrator dismissed the request for Assessment Direct's internal financial and administrative records, finding that the insurer failed to provide a sufficient evidentiary foundation to establish relevance or overcome the facility's privacy interests.