Terrence Flaherty

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the registrar's administrative dismissal of his malicious prosecution action.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action as frivolous and vexatious.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and the defendant suffered actual prejudice.

The court also held that even if the dismissal were set aside, the action would be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious because the plaintiff could not establish the elements of malicious prosecution, given that the police independently laid the charges and the plaintiff pled guilty to assault.

The applicant sought an award under section 10 of Regulation 664, arguing the respondent unreasonably withheld benefits by subjecting her to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) despite her sustaining a concussion.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's initial medical records did not clearly diagnose a concussion and that the respondent acted reasonably in requesting an insurer's examination.

Once the neurologist recommended removing the applicant from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, the respondent complied.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent did not unreasonably withhold or delay benefits and dismissed the application for an award and interest.

The applicant sought a rehabilitation benefit of $6,482.72 for an adjustable bed and mattress following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit, relying on a physiatrist's paper review which concluded the bed was not reasonable and necessary from a musculoskeletal perspective.

The Tribunal found the respondent's medical evidence unpersuasive and preferred the comprehensive reports of the applicant's occupational therapist and psychologist, which established that the applicant's chronic pain resulted in long-term sleep maintenance issues.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the cost of the bed and mattress, plus interest.

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

The respondent insurer required an independent psychological examination before determining whether the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued this was unreasonable and sought a special award under Regulation 664.

The Tribunal found the insurer acted reasonably in requesting the examination given the lack of recent medical information.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the $200 cost of an updated OCF-3 disability certificate, finding it was an appropriate method for the applicant to notify the insurer of changed impairments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for home gym equipment.

The insurer denied the claim based on an insurer's examination.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant proved the gym equipment was reasonable and necessary to achieve pain reduction and increase strength, particularly given her childcare responsibilities which made attending a commercial gym difficult.

The Tribunal rejected the insurer's medical evidence as contradictory.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the equipment and interest, but her claim for a special award for unreasonable delay was dismissed because the insurer's delay in processing the denial was minimal.

The appellant mother appealed an order denying her access to her two children, who were made Crown wards without access.

The appellant argued the motions judge erred in applying the test for access under s. 59(2.1) of the repealed Child and Family Services Act.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge correctly concluded that the appellant's relationship with the children was not 'significantly advantageous' to reach the threshold of 'beneficial and meaningful.' Although the motions judge erred in her analysis of whether access would impair future adoption, the court found that a court-mandated access order would indeed impair the children's opportunity for adoption.

A child protection motion for summary judgment on disposition following a finding that the child was in need of protection.

The applicant sought an order for extended society care without access.

The parents consented to the finding of need for protection but failed to respond to the motion for summary judgment on disposition.

The court granted the motion, ordering extended society care without access to the respondent parents, finding that the child remained at risk of exposure to domestic violence and parental instability, and that the parents had failed to demonstrate capacity for meaningful engagement with access.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $6,080.00 for optometric services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her onus of proving the treatment was reasonable and necessary, primarily because she failed to submit the disputed treatment plan (OCF-18) into evidence.

The other medical evidence provided did not adequately identify the goals of the proposed treatment.

The claims for the medical benefit, interest, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a severe motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer sent 28 notices stating that she did not qualify for non-earner benefits 'at this time'.

The insurer argued the applicant was barred from arbitration due to the two-year limitation period.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's notices were not clear and unequivocal denials, as they failed to provide a real basis for the refusal and the phrase 'at this time' created ambiguity.

Therefore, the limitation period had not begun to run, and the applicant was not precluded from proceeding to arbitration.

The appellant insurer appealed an arbitration decision finding that the respondent was not excluded from receiving weekly statutory accident benefits.

The respondent had been convicted of failing to produce an insurance card, but a charge of driving without insurance was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, holding that the exclusion under paragraph 17(1)(c) of the Schedule requires a specific conviction for driving without insurance, which did not occur.

Furthermore, the exclusion under paragraph 17(1)(d) for driving while not authorized by law relates to licensing issues, not insurance status.

The applicant union applied for certification to represent a group of truck drivers.

The Board found the applicant to be a trade union.

The main issue was whether eight owner-operator drivers were dependent contractors or independent contractors.

The Board found they were economically dependent on the respondent and under an obligation to perform duties, making them dependent contractors.

The Board ordered representation votes to determine if a single employee driver should be included in the same bargaining unit as the dependent contractors.