Tamur Shah

The moving parties (defendants/plaintiffs by counterclaim) sought a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) for two investment properties, alleging fraud by the responding parties.

The responding party opposed, raising issues with the evidentiary basis of the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the moving parties established a triable claim to an interest in the properties, the equities did not favour granting a CPL.

The properties were acquired as investments, not for unique use, and damages would be a satisfactory remedy, as a CPL is not intended to secure a claim for damages.

The court also commented on the inappropriate use of inflammatory language in affidavits.

Stewart Title Guaranty Company brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the claim of its policyholder, Farina Nazir, and the crossclaim of 2212478 Ontario Inc. The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues raised could not be readily bifurcated from the main action and presented a serious prospect of inconsistent findings of fact and mixed fact and law.

The judge determined that a just adjudication required a complete understanding of the allegedly fraudulent transactions, which had not yet been fully discovered.

The court emphasized that partial summary judgment is a rare procedure, reserved for the clearest of cases, and was not appropriate here due to the risks of delay, expense, inefficiency, and inconsistent findings.

The action was ordered to proceed to trial expeditiously.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident and applied for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The insurer denied the designation and later argued that the applicant's application to the Tribunal was barred by the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal held that a denial of a catastrophic impairment designation is a threshold determination, not a refusal to pay a specific benefit, and therefore does not trigger the limitation period.

The applicant was permitted to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied funding for an income replacement benefit multidisciplinary report.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by finding that procedural fairness does not apply to an insurer's administrative processes and by restrictively interpreting the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law, as procedural fairness is a public law doctrine inapplicable to insurers, and the Schedule clearly limits funding for such reports.

Following an arbitration where the applicant withdrew all issues except the cost of catastrophic impairment assessments, and the arbitrator ruled in favour of the insurer on that remaining issue, the insurer sought its expenses of the arbitration.

The insurer claimed $23,931.42 in fees and disbursements.

The arbitrator found that the insurer was successful, as the applicant withdrew the catastrophic impairment issue shortly before the hearing and lost on the assessment cost issue.

However, the insurer's claimed expenses were excessive and lacked supporting documentation for disbursements.

Taking a pragmatic approach, the arbitrator awarded the insurer $1,500.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, having previously been involved in three other accidents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her onus of proving a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting a lack of evidence regarding her pre-accident activities and credibility issues with her self-reporting.

The Tribunal placed limited weight on the psychological assessments because the assessors lacked critical information about the applicant's prior accidents and academic history.

The application for benefits, interest, and costs was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought non-earner benefits, medical benefits, and the cost of examinations from the insurer.

The insurer denied the benefits.

At the arbitration hearing, the applicant's credibility was found to be questionable due to inconsistencies between his testimony and the medical documentation regarding his pre-accident and post-accident activity levels.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of the accident.

The claims for medical benefits and cost of examinations were also dismissed as the applicant did not establish that they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was involved in motor vehicle accidents in May 2012 and October 2012, and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer, including non-earner benefits, medical benefits, and the cost of examinations.

The insurer denied the claims.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit because she failed to submit a Disability Certificate for the May 2012 accident, as required by section 36(3) of the Schedule.

Furthermore, the arbitrator concluded that the applicant did not prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to attend school, work part-time, and engage in other normal activities post-accident.

The claims for medical benefits and cost of examinations were also dismissed because the applicant failed to establish that they were reasonable and necessary.