William Grantley Woodward

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit.

She also received a monthly disability benefit of $6,175.00 from a private RBC insurance policy.

The insurer sought to deduct the RBC benefit from the income replacement benefit under section 7 of the SABS.

The arbitrator held that the RBC policy met the criteria of an 'income continuation benefit plan' under section 2(9) of the SABS, as it was offered only to employed persons and the maximum benefit was calculated with reference to employment income.

Therefore, the RBC benefit was deductible.

The appellants appealed a jury's damages assessment arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The jury awarded $40,000 in general damages (reduced to $10,000 after a statutory deduction) and zero dollars for other claims, despite the appellants claiming over $50,000.

The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction, as section 19(1.2) of the Courts of Justice Act directs appeals to the Divisional Court when the amount ordered to be paid, or the amount assessed for a dismissed claim, is under $50,000.

The appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision where liability was admitted and damages remained in issue, the plaintiff moved to exclude evidence from experts who prepared accident benefits reports for the plaintiff’s insurer.

The plaintiff argued the reports were irrelevant, non-compliant with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, prejudicial to trial fairness, and duplicative.

The court held that although the experts had not signed the Form 53 acknowledgement required under Rule 53.03(2.1), the rule applied even to experts retained by non-parties and the non‑compliance could be cured by granting leave subject to obtaining the acknowledgement.

The court found portions of the reports remained relevant to the plaintiff’s cognitive, emotional, and physical condition at an intermediate stage following the accident, though opinions on employability were excluded as no longer relevant.

The motion to exclude the expert evidence was dismissed, subject to conditions.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the court determined the appropriate costs consequences where the plaintiffs obtained a judgment significantly less favourable than the defendant’s Rule 49 offer to settle.

The plaintiffs recovered limited damages after the statutory deductible reduced the award.

The court considered whether Rule 76 simplified procedure should have been used and concluded it was reasonable for the plaintiffs to proceed under the ordinary procedure due to the complexity of the case and expert evidence.

Applying Rule 49.10(2), the plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the defendant’s offer, and the defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs thereafter.

Substantial indemnity costs were refused because there was no reprehensible conduct.

The appellants were injured in a motor vehicle accident and held an insurance policy with a $1 million family protection coverage limit (OPCF 44R).

The tortfeasor also had a $1 million insurance limit.

Because the tortfeasor's limit might be apportioned among four injured parties, the appellants sought to access their underinsurance coverage to make up any shortfall.

The Court of Appeal upheld the summary judgment dismissing the claim against the insurer, confirming that underinsurance coverage is not triggered when the tortfeasor's policy limit equals the family protection coverage limit, regardless of the number of claimants.

The applicant, who was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion to compel the insurer to pay $252,000 towards home modifications or the purchase of a new home.

The insurer had previously indicated it would consider paying this amount but argued it was not yet payable because the applicant had not incurred the expense or provided an invoice.

The arbitrator found that while the insurer had agreed to pay the amount, the applicant had not taken concrete steps towards purchasing a new home or renovating his existing home to constitute an 'invoice' under section 38 of the Schedule.

The motion was dismissed, along with claims for interest and a special award.

The appellant insurer appealed a Rule 21 motion decision which held that an exclusion clause in an insurance policy did not apply to the increased costs of repairing fire damage necessitated by building code and by-law compliance.

The appellant argued the question was hypothetical, contingent on disputed facts, and raised a novel point of law requiring a full record.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge was entitled to make the disposition on the record before him and the point of law was not novel.

The appellant was involved in a minor rear-end collision and subsequently claimed disabling chronic pain.

At trial, the jury initially awarded zero for general damages, explaining they believed an insurance settlement had already compensated the appellant.

The trial judge instructed them to reconsider only general damages, which they reassessed at $50,000.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge should have instructed the jury to reconsider all heads of damage and that the overall assessment was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the jury's verdict was reasonable given the conflicting evidence on the cause and extent of the injuries.

The plaintiff suffered a low back injury in a motor vehicle accident.

At trial, the defendant successfully moved for a finding that the plaintiff did not meet the threshold for permanent serious impairment under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The trial judge found the impairment was neither permanent nor serious.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in finding the impairment was not permanent, as there was no evidence the pain would completely resolve.

The Court also found the trial judge took an overly narrow approach to whether the impairment was serious by focusing only on the plaintiff's ability to resume employment and household duties, without considering the effect of continuing pain on her enjoyment of life.

The appeal was allowed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including caregiver benefits and medical expenses, alleging that a 1994 motor vehicle accident caused a disc herniation in 1996.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's evidence regarding the onset of her disability was unsupported by contemporary medical documentation, which indicated the disability began at the time of the herniation, more than two years after the accident.

Furthermore, expert medical evidence failed to establish a causal link between the 1994 accident and the 1996 disc herniation.

All claims for benefits, expenses, and a special award were denied.

The appellant appealed from a trial judge's dismissal of a motion to adduce fresh evidence.

The appellant had previously sought to adduce the same evidence before the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal and refused to reconsider its decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the current appeal, finding that the admissibility of the evidence had already been determined and that the proposed evidence did not meet the requirements for admission, as it could not reasonably be expected to have affected the result at trial.

In a dispute over statutory accident benefits, the parties sought preliminary rulings on the production of documents.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to produce draft reports and clinical notes of IME and DAC assessors, finding that such statutorily mandated assessments are not protected by litigation privilege.

The arbitrator also ordered the insurer to produce its complete accident benefits file, including adjusters' notes and reserve information, up to the date the applicant applied for mediation, applying the dominant purpose test.

The insurer was further ordered to produce all surveillance evidence if it intended to rely on any part of it.

The applicant's requests for the insurer's policy manuals and legal opinions were denied.

Finally, the applicant's Canada Pension Plan file was ordered produced as it was relevant to her medical condition.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and initially applied for accident benefits from her son's insurer, The Personal, who paid her expenses for a year before realizing she had her own policy with Zurich.

The applicant then applied to Zurich, who denied the claim due to the delay in notice.

On a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator found that under section 268 of the Insurance Act, Zurich was the priority insurer.

The arbitrator also found that the applicant had a reasonable excuse for the delay in notifying Zurich, as The Personal's error in sending the wrong claim form and subsequent payment of benefits caused the delay.

Zurich was ordered to pay the applicant's accident benefits.