Sulaiman Mangal

The plaintiff, Norman Ramcharran, brought an action for damages following a hit-and-run collision.

A jury awarded general damages, past loss of income, and future loss of income.

The defendant insurer, State Farm, brought a post-trial motion arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory verbal threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court applied the three-part test from Malfara v. Vukojevic, finding the plaintiff's permanent physical impairment (right elbow pain and weakness) was important and serious, thus meeting the threshold.

The court also addressed OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement coverage, ruling that physical evidence (vehicle damage photos) sufficiently corroborated the involvement of an unidentified vehicle.

Finally, on costs, the court determined that the plaintiff's April 13, 2023, offer to settle, despite a subsequent lower offer, remained valid for Rule 49 costs consequences, and fixed costs and disbursements in favour of the plaintiff.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied a physiotherapy treatment plan and a chronic pain assessment.

The Tribunal found the physiotherapy treatment was reasonable and necessary, preferring the clinical records of the treating physician over the insurer's examiner.

However, the claim for the chronic pain assessment was dismissed because the applicant incurred the expense before submitting the treatment plan, contrary to section 38(2) of the Schedule.

The plaintiff, Herbert Alexander, sought unidentified motorist coverage from his insurer, State Farm, following a multi-vehicle collision.

Alexander alleged he was rear-ended by an unidentified vehicle, which propelled his vehicle into the O'Sullivan vehicle.

State Farm moved for summary judgment, contending there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the involvement of an unidentified driver, citing a lack of physical evidence and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's account.

The court, exercising its enhanced fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1), found the plaintiff's uncorroborated evidence unconvincing and determined that expert reports did not support the claim of a rear-end impact without observable damage.

Summary judgment was granted, dismissing the action against State Farm.

Following the settlement of a construction dispute for $58,000, the plaintiffs sought costs and prejudgment interest.

The court reviewed the plaintiffs' bill of costs, noting the settlement was slightly more favourable than their pre-trial offer.

Applying the factors under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Courts of Justice Act, the court awarded the plaintiffs $48,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the claimed amount to account for work related to a failed arbitration and proportionality to the settlement.

Prejudgment interest was also awarded at a rate of 4.8%, totaling $23,156.78.

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

The insurer suspended his income replacement benefits after an insurer's psychological assessment was terminated prematurely.

The insurer argued the applicant abruptly left, while the applicant claimed the assessor was harsh and unaccommodating.

The arbitrator found that the assessor created an insensitive and critical atmosphere, which precipitated the termination of the assessment.

The arbitrator concluded that the assessment was not a reasonable examination to which the applicant should be required to submit, and that he had a reasonable excuse for refusing further assessment with that specific doctor.

The suspension of benefits was lifted, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration.

The applicant sought expenses following an arbitration decision where he achieved partial success in his claims for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer also claimed its expenses, relying on two written offers to settle that exceeded the applicant's recovery.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant 50% of his allowable arbitration expenses, considering his partial success, the insurer's conduct in delaying pre-hearing discussions, and the statutory objective of speedy dispute resolution.

The insurer's claim for expenses was denied, as the arbitrator declined to follow a strict results-based approach based solely on the offers to settle.

The applicant's total allowable expenses were assessed at $13,010, resulting in an award of $6,505.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits after the insurer terminated them.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was entitled to income replacement benefits for a limited period from July 22, 2000, to October 4, 2000, based on his family doctor's evidence of ongoing improvement.

However, relying on surveillance evidence and a Med Rehab DAC assessment, the arbitrator concluded the applicant was substantially able to perform his pre-accident employment as a welder after October 4, 2000.

The arbitrator also awarded $1,522 for chiropractic treatments but denied the claim for physiotherapy and massage treatments, finding them not reasonable and necessary.