Zachary Peachey

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) beyond the 104-week post-accident mark, requiring him to prove a complete inability to engage in any reasonably suited employment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, relying on surveillance evidence and expert reports suggesting the applicant had some capacity for work.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony, corroborated by his spouse and medical evidence, established that his chronic pain and severe psychological impairments prevented him from sustaining employment.

The Tribunal placed significant weight on the applicant's experts and found the surveillance evidence did not contradict his reported limitations.

The applicant was awarded ongoing IRBs and interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules.

Because the applicant presented no evidence or submissions, he failed to meet his burden of proving entitlement to the disputed benefits, including income replacement benefits and various treatment plans.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied, as the applicant's non-attendance did not meet the high threshold of unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious conduct.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate and individual defendants for default on three small business loans totaling approximately $559,293.

The defendants initially opposed the motion, arguing the guarantees were signed under stress without independent legal advice, but conceded these arguments at the hearing.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting that corporate officers are not required to obtain independent legal advice to be bound by guarantees.

Summary judgment was granted, ordering payment of the outstanding loans, interest, and delivery of possession of the secured properties, along with substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion regarding parenting time during the COVID-19 court suspension.

The triage judge reviewed the father's materials and found that he had unilaterally retained the three-year-old child after a period of access due to frustration over timesharing disputes.

The court declined to hear the motion, noting strong disapproval of self-help in parenting disputes, and recommended the immediate return of the child to the respondent mother.