S.M. v. Unica Insurance Inc., 2020 CanLII 12718 (ON LAT) (Licence Appeal Tribunal)
Successful in-person hearing for a client with serious catastrophic injuries arising from an accident. The team at Mazin & Associates successfully obtained for the client the maximum payable attendant care benefit of $6,000.00 per month as well as two substantial awards that are awarded in rare cases- a home modification award and a special award against the insurance company. The quantum of the home modification award of $344,864.00 was unprecedented at the LAT (Licence Appeal Tribunal) as was the magnitude of the 25% special award for the payment of the home modifications and attendant care benefits, which were unreasonably denied by the insurance company.
N.Y. v. Dumfries Mutual Insurance Company, 2019 CanLII 119720 (ON LAT) (Licence Appeal Tribunal)
Successful in-person hearing for a client where the quantum of attendant care was in dispute. The team at Mazin & Associates successfully argued for the client’s need for 24-hour basic supervisory care and obtained the maximum payable attendant care benefit of $6,000.00 per month. Mazin & Associates successfully demonstrated that the client’s unpredictable episodes support the need for 24-hour basic supervisory care despite the fact that the client did not necessarily require attendant care during all 24 hours. Furthermore, the issue of whether the attendant care services were incurred was also in dispute with the client’s sister (family member) as a provider. Despite the insurance company taking issue with the lack of record keeping, the timing of the promise to pay and surveillance that called into question the dates on which the services were provided, Mazin & Associates successfully argued that the attendant care services were incurred. As a result, this case was of great significance with respect to the circumstances in which the “incurred” requirement may be satisfied.
Shuttleworth v. Ontario (Safety, Licensing Appeals and Standards Tribunals) 2019 ONCA 518 (Ontario Court of Appeal)
Mazin & Associates was successful in this appeal before the Ontario Court of Appeal where the LAT, SLASTO and Peel Mutual Insurance Company appealed the order of a lower court. The lower court (Divisional Court) granted Mazin & Associates’, on behalf of the client, application for judicial review in finding that there was a reasonable apprehension of the LAT adjudicator’s lack of independence. Mazin & Associates successfully argued that there was no basis for appellate interference with the Divisional Court’s analysis and conclusion that there was a reasonable apprehension of a lack of independence. The appeal was dismissed and a new hearing was ordered before the LAT.
Loureiro v. Brown, 2019 ONSC 2672 (Superior Court of Justice)
The defendant’s threshold motion was dismissed after Mazin & Associates successfully argued that the client’s injuries and impairments arising from a motor vehicle accident met the threshold. Mazin & Associates also won the jury trial in this matter as a favorable jury verdict was obtained.
Akeelah v. Clow, 2018 ONSC 3410 (Superior Court of Justice)
Mazin & Associates was successful in a trial for damages sustained as a result of injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident. The defendants were liable for the client’s damages, which the judge assessed to be approximately $150,000.00.
Mary Shuttleworth v. Licence Appeal Tribunal, 2018 ONSC 3790 (Superior Court of Justice – Divisional Court)
Mazin & Associates was successful in its application for judicial review of the Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied the client’s claim of catastrophic impairment. The application on behalf of the client was allowed and the LAT decision was set aside. The backdrop to the judicial review application was the fact that following the conclusion of the LAT hearing, Mazin & Associates received an anonymous note, which called into question the LAT adjudicator’s independence with respect to her final decision on the client’s catastrophic determination. As the court held at para 8, “the consultative decision-making process followed by the LAT in this case did not meet the minimum standards required to ensure both the existence and the appearance of adjudicative independence of the adjudicator’s decision.” This case was of great importance as it reinforced the safeguards of adjudicative independence and served as a strong reminder that tribunals are expected to avoid the appearance of an apprehension of bias or lack of independence.
Shaw and TD General Insurance Co., Re, 2018 CarswellOnt 4711 – (FSCO Arbitration Decision)
Mazin & Associates was successful in this arbitration hearing. The client was found to have sustained a catastrophic impairment and was entitled to attendant care benefits over and above what had already been paid by TD Insurance as well as medical benefits. Mazin & Associates also successfully argued that TD Insurance was liable for the expenses incurred with respect to the arbitration.
Akeelah and Belair Insurance Co., Re., 2018 CarswellOnt 1616 – (FSCO Arbitration Decision re: expenses of the arbitration). Akeelah and Belair Insurance Co., Re., 2017 CarswellOnt 12889- (FSCO Arbitration decision re: hearing itself).
Mazin & Associates was successful in this arbitration hearing. During the hearing, the client was found to be catastrophically impaired and entitled to a special award. Mazin & Associates also successfully argued that the client was entitled to his expenses of the arbitration.
Britten v. EWIO, 2017 ONSC 4707 – (Superior Court of Justice)
Mazin & Associates was successful in this three-week jury trial. The plaintiff was awarded damages for personal injuries suffered as a result of an accident. On the issue of liability, the defendants’ position was that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. However, the jury also reached a favourable determination in this regard and found that the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent for the accident.
17-004584/AABS v Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company, 2017 CarswellOnt 21426 (Licence Appeal Tribunal)
Mazin & Associates was successful in this motion denying the defendant’s motion for further productions.
Drakoulis Estate v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., 2017 CarswellOnt 7575 – (FSCO Appeal Decision successfully overturning the decision of Drakoulis v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Co., 2016 CarswellOnt 21001 FSCO Arbitration Decision where it was held that an enforceable settlement was not reached)
Mazin & Associates was successful in this appeal challenging the Arbitrator’s decision in which he found a settlement invalid as the client was deceased at the time. The appeal was allowed and the settlement was found to be valid and binding.
Basandra v. Sforza, 2015 ONSC 5059 – (Superior Court of Justice)
Mazin & Associates was successful in this hearing on costs following a successful jury trial conducted by Mazin & Associates where the jury found that the defendant was negligent and awarded the client damages.
Quinones v. Unifund Assurance Co., 2013 CarswellOnt 11691 – (FSCO Arbitration Decision)
Successful preliminary issue hearing where it was held that the client was not prohibited from proceeding to arbitration because she did not attend an insurer’s examination. The issue of whether she was prohibited from proceeding to arbitration was raised by the insurance company. Mazin & Associates successfully argued that she was not prohibited from proceeding to arbitration and the insurance company did not provide a medical reason for the examination in accordance with its obligations.
Gary Mazin, Founder
Gary Mazin, founder of Mazin & Associates, PC, is proud to serve this great city and all of Ontario.Read More
Frequently Asked Questions
- When should I see a lawyer?
- Do I need a lawyer to deal with an insurance company?
- Why should I choose Mazin & Associates PC?
Shuttleworth v. LAT AppealRead More