Wendy Moore Johns

The Ontario-resident plaintiffs purchased Mexican vacation packages from the defendant Sunwing in Ontario.

The plaintiffs suffered serious injuries in a bus accident in Mexico caused by the negligence of the driver.

The bus was operated by Best Day, a Mexican company contracted by Sunwing.

Best Day entered into indemnity agreements with Sunwing agreeing to Ontario jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs sued Sunwing and Best Day in Ontario.

Best Day moved to dismiss or stay the action for lack of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The motion judge dismissed the motion.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Best Day's appeal, finding a real and substantial connection to Ontario and that Ontario was the convenient forum.

The applicant, a caregiver injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought loss of earning capacity benefits (LECBs).

The parties agreed her residual earning capacity was zero, but disputed her pre-accident earning capacity (PEC).

The insurer argued her PEC was zero due to pre-accident cognitive and physical limitations, relying on a psychologist's assessment.

The arbitrator rejected the psychologist's opinion as unreliable and accepted the applicant's vocational expert, finding her PEC should be based on a gross annual income of $18,000 as an unskilled industrial worker.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claims for retroactive attendant care benefits due to lack of evidence on quantum, and for the cost of an actuarial report obtained for settlement purposes.

The applicant, an 18-year-old pedestrian, was struck by a bus and sustained injuries.

He applied for statutory accident benefits approximately 11 months after the accident.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis of late application without a reasonable explanation.

On a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator found that the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay, given his youth, reliance on his mother, and the time taken to identify the correct insurer.

Furthermore, the arbitrator held that the insurer failed to promptly provide the applicant with sufficient information regarding the consequences of failing to comply with the time limits, meaning the time limit to submit the application never began to run.

The applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration.

The insurer brought a motion for the production of correspondence and file materials between the applicant and his lawyer, arguing that the applicant had waived solicitor-client privilege by implication.

The insurer contended that the applicant placed his state of mind in issue regarding his delay in applying for statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant's conduct, rather than his state of mind or the legal advice he received, was the focus of the inquiry into whether he had a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Therefore, privilege was not waived, and the documents were protected from production.