Tom David

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order declaring that the parties had not settled the underlying action for non-payment of furnace equipment.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge erred in finding there was no meeting of the minds regarding the settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding an evidentiary basis for the Deputy Judge's conclusion that the parties had not agreed on a material term regarding the timing of payment and receipt of documents.

The court also found the Deputy Judge's brief reasons were adequate for the Small Claims Court context.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of his civil action relating to a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury trial where damages were assessed at $34,000, the trial judge ruled that the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold under s. 266(1)(b) of the Insurance Act and dismissed the action.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued the trial judge erred in his jury charge, in relying on the jury's findings for the threshold issue, and in finding the threshold was not met.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the jury charge, confirming a judge may consider the jury verdict on the threshold issue, and agreeing the plaintiff did not meet the onus to establish a permanent serious impairment.

The appellant appealed a judgment dismissing his personal injury action following a jury verdict.

The jury found that the motor vehicle accident did not cause or materially contribute to any of the appellant's injuries, despite assessing damages at $25,000 for pain and suffering.

The appellant argued the verdict was perverse and that the trial judge erred in evidentiary rulings regarding expert witnesses.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the jury's verdict was reasonable given the central issue of the appellant's credibility and the defendants' position at trial.

The court also found no reversible error in the trial judge's evidentiary rulings.

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

During an arbitration hearing on entitlement to income replacement benefits, the hearing arbitrator adjourned the matter and purportedly severed the issue of quantum to be heard by a different arbitrator.

At the subsequent hearing on quantum, the new arbitrator raised the issue of jurisdiction.

The arbitrator held that the issue of quantum was a necessary sub-issue of entitlement and could not be severed without statutory authority.

As the original hearing arbitrator remained seised of the issue, the separate hearing on quantum was declared a nullity.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, alleging she was injured when a public transit bus she was riding collided with another vehicle.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that it had no record of the accident.

At the arbitration hearing, the applicant testified about the collision, but her evidence contained inconsistencies regarding the date, location, and route.

The insurer presented evidence from several employees detailing the transit authority's comprehensive accident reporting and vehicle tracking systems.

The tracking data demonstrated that the specific bus the applicant identified was across the city at the time, and no buses travelled the alleged route during the relevant timeframe.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident occurred and dismissed the claim.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed entitlement to weekly income replacement benefits of $430.71 based on his income as an independent convenience store operator.

The insurer paid $238.07 weekly.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence regarding his employee wage costs to be inconsistent and unsupported by documentation.

The arbitrator accepted the insurer's expert accounting evidence, which calculated the applicant's net weekly income at $264.53, entitling him to a benefit of $238.07.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer had paid the proper amount.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision that allowed only a portion of his claimed physical rehabilitation and transportation expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's findings that the extended treatment hours claimed were not reasonable or required, and that the evidence for transportation expenses was insufficient.

The request for a special award was denied as it was not pursued at arbitration.

The arbitrator's order regarding arbitration expenses was varied to reflect the parties' agreement for two-and-a-half days of hearing.

The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

The applicant, a 70-year-old pedestrian, was struck by a truck and sustained soft tissue injuries to her left shoulder and back.

The insurer terminated her statutory accident benefits in February 1997.

The applicant sought ongoing other disability benefits and rehabilitation benefits for case management services.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a partial inability to carry on a normal life until March 1998, at which point her condition had stabilized such that she could perform most of her ordinary household tasks.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for case management services, finding that the applicant's situation was not sufficiently complex to warrant a case manager given the support she already received from family, friends, and medical professionals.

The applicant sought ongoing income replacement benefits, medical expenses, and a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the accident did not cause the applicant's injuries and sought repayment of benefits paid, alleging wilful misrepresentation.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence unreliable and accepted expert medical evidence that the applicant exaggerated his symptoms and that the accident did not cause his delayed symptoms.

The claims for benefits and a special award were dismissed.

The insurer's request for repayment was also dismissed, as the applicant's exaggeration did not amount to wilful misrepresentation.

The applicant was awarded half of his arbitration expenses.