Thomas Hughes

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents in November 2009.

He claimed entitlement to housekeeping and home maintenance services, attendant care benefits, income replacement benefits, and various assessment expenses.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding the Applicant's testimony lacked credibility and corroboration.

The arbitrator concluded the Applicant's impairment was a Grade II whiplash-associated disorder falling within the Pre-approved Framework Guideline, precluding attendant care benefits and limiting income replacement benefits.

Furthermore, the Applicant failed to provide reasonably required employment information, barring his claim for income replacement benefits under section 33 of the SABS.

Multiple defendants brought motions seeking the appointment of a litigation guardian for a self‑represented plaintiff pursuing four personal injury actions.

The court considered medical evidence from a psychiatrist assessing the plaintiff’s mental capacity under s. 6 of the Substitute Decisions Act, 1992 and Rules 7.01 and 7.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The expert concluded that the plaintiff suffered from a delusional disorder and was unable to understand information relevant to litigation decisions or appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of those decisions.

The court found the plaintiff’s expectations of recovering approximately $26.9 million in damages to be grossly unrealistic and indicative of an inability to make rational litigation decisions.

On a balance of probabilities, the court determined the plaintiff was mentally incapable in respect of the litigation and required a litigation guardian.

The applicant dismissed his counsel during a teleconference and requested an adjournment of the scheduled hearing.

The insurer objected and sought costs thrown away against the former counsel personally, or alternatively against the applicant, arguing the proceeding was commenced without authority or was frivolous.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion for costs, finding no evidence that the application was commenced without authority or that it was frivolous, as the matter had not yet been adjudicated on the merits.

The arbitrator also found no evidence that any preparation costs were actually thrown away.