Recent and notable Decisions

• Erwin Giles vs Intact Insurance, 2022
• General Division Income Security Decision - 2021-11-18
• WSIAT - 2021-05-26 - Decision
• Trial decisions: Rumney v Nelson, 2021 ONSC 5632 (Can LII)
• Donna Nesbitt v Canada, Federal Court of Appeal Minutes of Settlement (Redacted) dated December 23rd, 2020, Court File No. A-201-20
• P.V. and Economical Insurance (2020) ONLAT 19-000069/AABS
• R. F. vs The Guarantee Company of North America, 2019 ONLAT 16003617/AABS
• Bowles-Fraser v. Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FC 308
• R.F. vs The Guarantee Company of North America, 2017
• Dunk v. Kremer, 2018 ONCA 274 (CanLII)
• Dunk v. Kremer, 2017 ONSC 1547
• Judgment - 2017-03-07 - Meaghan Dunk
• Dunk et al. v. Kremer et al, 2016 ONSC 3545
• Court of Appeal Decision, Maxwell v. Luck, 2015
• Maxwell v. Luck, 2014 ONSC 7179 (Can LII)
• Maxwell v. Luck et al – Barrie Court File No. 08-1313 – Costs Endorsement
• Yetman v. Marzec, 2014 ONSC 4122 (CanLII)
• Yetman v. Marzec, 2014 ONSC 4624 (CanLII)
• Partial Judgment - 2014-06-05 - Yetman
• Grammatico v. Chambers, 2012 ONSC 5640 (CanLII)
• Grammatico v. Chambers, 2012 ONSC 6518 (CanLII) (Div. Ct.)
• Grammatico v. Chambers, 2012 ONSC 7168 (CanLII) (Div. Ct.)
• Blair v. Barrie (City), 2006 ONSC 42061 (CanLII)
• Sholte v. Manulife Financial, 2003 CanLII 43054 (ON SC)

Note: Past results are not necessarily indicative of future results and that the amount recovered and other litigation outcomes will vary according to the facts in each individual case.

1. .Trial decision: Your defendant’s insurer is stopped at Trial from using survellance obtained at a private wedding and reception. In this case, the admissibility of surveillance taken from a church, schoolyard, private wedding & reception and was considered. 70.5% of the surveillance was deemed inadmissible for Trial: Rumney v Nelson, 2021 ONSC 5632 (Can LII).

2. Trial decision: The first Court decision as to whether you should know about the statutory deductible for your MVA injury award: Rumney v Nelson, 2021 ONSC 5632 (Can LII).

3. Your insurer’s refusal to pay income replacement benefits (IRBs) beyond an alleged two year limitation period: P.V. and Economical Insurance (2020) ONLAT 19-000069/AABS. This is the first IRB decision that gives you the right to sue for IRBs well after a “hard limitation” period has supposedly expired. In this case, P.V. was judicially allowed to pursue his IRB claim four and a half years following his motor vehicle collision. This IRB decision has reversed five previous Court of Appeal decisions, principal among them, Sietzma and Bonnacorso.

4. Your insurer’s outright refusal to pay your genuine soft-tissue injury claims before Trial, even though it was obvious that they should do so: See Maxwell v. Luck here and here . In this Appellate decision, our client personally received an additional $50,000 award as a result of the harsh conduct of her insurer. This was the first award of this kind in this province.
5. Your insurer’s arbitrary reduction of the coverage you paid for from $1,000,000 to $200,000 to limit what you should lawfully be paid for your injuries: See Yetman v. Marzec here and here . In this case, our client was awarded uncounted millions by the jury.
6. Your insurer takes steps to strike out your claim when you did not know you had to give written notice to the city within 10 days and while you were hurt: See Blair v. City of Barrie . This is the first case where the 10 day notice period was successfully challenged and extended under the Limitations Act.
7. In Dunk v Kremer, see here and here, the Defendant Insurer failed to recognize the significance of an ankle injury to a young individual. The jury returned with a verdict of uncounted millions, including additional award for pain and suffering. This is the highest pain and suffering award for a foot injury case in Ontario.
8.  A center stone of any personal injury litigation is getting Canada Pension Plan Long Term Disability Benefits for badly injured clients. Once CPPD is approved, it increases what the client receives since the federal government has accepted the severity of their injuries. A major requirement is usually that the client is not working. How do you get them for someone that is? This unique decision explains how:   Marie Whitbread V Ministry of Employment, SST Decision - 2021-03-23