Tripta Sood

The plaintiff sued her former lawyer for negligence and breach of contract arising from an allegedly improvident settlement of her accident benefits claim in May 2014.

The plaintiff claimed the lawyer failed to advise her adequately regarding income replacement benefits, failed to discourage her from settling prematurely, and failed to advise her of the potential for catastrophic impairment designation which would have entitled her to significantly enhanced benefits.

The court found that while the lawyer breached the standard of care in several respects, the plaintiff failed to establish causation because she did not prove she would have acted differently with proper advice.

Additionally, the plaintiff failed to mitigate her damages by not attempting to set aside the settlement when she became aware of the defect.

The court also found the plaintiff failed to establish that she would have been found catastrophically impaired.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence, and did not file a Notice of Withdrawal.

The adjudicator proceeded with the hearing and found that the applicant failed to meet the onus of demonstrating entitlement to the disputed medical benefits, award, and interest.

The application was dismissed.

During a trial for damages and statutory accident benefits arising from a motor vehicle accident, the self-represented plaintiff sought to introduce a medical report for the truth of its contents without calling the authoring doctor to testify.

The defendants objected on the basis of hearsay and failure to comply with the Evidence Act and Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court ruled the report inadmissible, holding that without the opportunity for cross-examination, the hearsay content could not be admitted.

The court also provided guidance on best practices for self-represented litigants regarding expert evidence.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a 2011 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated the benefits in May 2014, providing a clear and unequivocal denial along with information on the dispute process.

The applicant failed to file an application with the Tribunal until November 2018, well beyond the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding and declined to grant an extension of time under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, noting the significant delay and prejudice to the insurer.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle while pushing her infant in a grocery cart and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment due to psychological injuries, along with ongoing Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant suffered a mental or behavioural disorder caused by the accident, her impairments were moderate rather than marked, and thus she did not meet the catastrophic impairment threshold.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's claim for post-104 week IRBs, finding she suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment based on vocational and psychological assessments.

Claims for specific physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment plans were dismissed for lack of evidence, though the insurer was ordered to pay HST on an approved psychological treatment plan.

A claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being injured while loading a refrigerator onto a trailer attached to a parked vehicle.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that while loading the trailer was an ordinary use of the vehicle, the direct cause of the injuries was the malfunction of the dolly holding the refrigerator.

The dolly's failure constituted an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that he sustained psychological injuries that removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence of psychological impairment was insufficient, noting that he had expressly denied psychological issues to the respondent's assessor and in other documentation.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG, dismissing his claims for medical benefits, interest, and an award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice in a parking lot after exiting and locking her vehicle.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the Greenhalgh test and found that the use or operation of the vehicle was not a direct cause of the injuries, as the icy surface was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The Tribunal also held it lacked jurisdiction to apply the doctrine of estoppel against the insurer.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent terminated the IRBs after the applicant returned to work and provided notice of the termination.

More than two years later, the applicant stopped working and sought to reinstate the IRBs.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was statute-barred from appealing the denial because the two-year limitation period commenced upon the clear termination notice, and subsequent inquiries by the respondent did not reset the limitation period.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied funding for chiropractic services, physiotherapy, and a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to dispute the partial denial of chiropractic services within the two-year limitation period.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's injuries were minor as defined by the Schedule, as there was no compelling medical evidence of psychological or non-minor injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend the time to set the action down for trial to allow for further medical assessment of a child who suffered a brain injury after falling from a balcony.

The defendant landlord brought a cross-motion to bifurcate the trial into separate liability and damages phases, arguing that key liability witnesses were elderly and their memories would fade if the trial was delayed.

The court held that it had inherent jurisdiction to order bifurcation without consent, despite conflicting case law on Rule 6.1.01.

Finding this to be an exceptional case where bifurcation would save time and preserve evidence, the court granted both the extension of time and the bifurcation order.

The applicant sought an adjournment of a hearing regarding a catastrophic impairment determination because the respondent had only recently produced medical reports.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, arguing the late disclosure was caused by the applicant's own delay in providing her medical assessments.

The Tribunal granted the adjournment, finding that the applicant was entitled to prepare medical reports in reply to the respondent's assessors, and that a full hearing on the merits of the serious catastrophic impairment issue was necessary.

The hearing was adjourned to September 2017.

The insurer brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to undergo a capacity assessment under the Substitute Decisions Act and requesting that income replacement benefits be paid into court pending the assessment.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and sought direct payment of benefits.

The court considered the statutory presumption of capacity and the factors governing intrusive capacity assessments under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act.

Although medical reports documented chronic pain, depression, and psychological symptoms, the evidence did not establish a sufficient basis to believe the plaintiff lacked capacity.

The motion was dismissed and the insurer was ordered to resume payment of outstanding income replacement benefits.

In a motor vehicle action issued within the limitation period but not served on the defendants until well after expiry of the service period, the plaintiff sought substituted service on the insurer and an extension of time for service, while the defendants sought dismissal for delay.

The court found the plaintiff's service efforts wholly lacking and criticized counsel's dilatory conduct, but held the defendants had not established sufficient specific prejudice to their ability to defend the action.

Relying on appellate authority emphasizing prejudice over mere passage of time, the court extended time for service on strict terms, refused immediate substituted service on the insurer, denied the cross-motion to dismiss, and imposed a peremptory litigation timetable against the plaintiff.

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

The insurer refused to pay further benefits, arguing the applicant's election to opt out of WSIB benefits was made primarily to obtain statutory accident benefits.

A preliminary issue hearing was scheduled to determine the validity of the election.

The applicant failed to appear at the hearing despite proper notice.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving the validity of his election and failed to do so, the application for arbitration was dismissed.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses of $5,254.77.