Huber v. Allstate (“Huber”) involved an accident benefits dispute before the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “LAT”) related to a motor vehicle collision, which occurred on November 6, 2019. The issues in dispute were: (a) whether the applicant suffered a “minor injury,” in accordance with section 3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (the “SABS”); (b) whether the applicant was entitled to psychological services in the amount of $3,841.09; and (c) whether the applicant was entitled to psychological assessment in the amount of $2,486. Additionally, the applicant further sought interest and an award under section 10 of O. Reg 664 due to the insurer unreasonably withholding or delaying payment to the applicant.
personal injury Tag Archives
Veerasingam v. Licence Appeal Tribunal, 2024 ONSC 3730
Full Decision The Ontario Divisional Court reminds legal professionals of their professional obligations with respect to advocacy. The single most important task of the litigator is to marshal and present the facts by admissible evidence to prove their case. Lawyers must never knowingly misstate facts. A lawyer must not assert as true a fact that cannot reasonably be supported by the evidence admitted in the …
Crete v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation, 2024 ONCA 459
The recent Court of Appeal decision in Crete v. Ottawa Community Housing Corporation confirmed that the landlord was not liable for damages caused by a slip and fall on ice in a townhouse complex in an area used exclusively by individual tenants, where the lease required the tenant to clear snow and ice.
Van Belois v. Bartholomew, 2023 ONSC 5799 (CanLII)
The plaintiff successfully resisted a motion to compel her to attend a further defence medical examination after the deadline to serve expert reports had passed.
Shahin v. Intact Insurance Company, 2024 ONSC 2059 (CanLII)
The Divisional Court allowed an appeal from a decision of the LAT, finding that the Tribunal’s decision was procedurally unfair
Denman v. Radovanovic, 2024 ONCA 276
In Denman v. Radovanovic, the Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the trial judge’s decision to find all three defendant physicians liable for failing to obtain Mr. Denman’s informed consent to an elective and multi-step plan of medical intervention to cure Mr. Denman’s brain arteriovenous malformation (“AVM”). This summary will focus on five key takeaways from the Court of Appeal’s decision, written by Rouleau J.A.