Fayaz Al-Wadaan vs. Aviva General Insurance Company – Tribunal File No: 18-008742/AABS Adjudicator – Brian Norris , Alan J. Clausi – counsel for the applicant, Michelle Friedman – counsel for the respondent. Alan’s application to the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) – Automobile Accident Benefit Service – was heard and a decision was made in favour…

Read More

Aviva Canada Inc. and Yeshitla Dadi – Commission Appeal File No. P17-00074 October 23, 2018 James Brown – lawyer for Aviva Canada – Appellant Alan Clausi – lawyer for Yeshitla Dadi – Respondent   Aviva Appealed, alleging that Arbitrator Matheson erred by: 1. Misinterpreting the Schedule; 2. Failing to provide adequate reasons; 3. Refusing to…

Read More

Arbitration – FSCO A16-004703 Alan Clausi – lawyer for Mr. Dadi – Applicant Alex Robineau and James Brown – lawyers for Aviva Canada Inc. – Respondent   The Arbitration of this accident benefits claim was brought mainly to dispute Aviva’s determinations that: 1. Mr. Dadi had suffered ‘minor’ injuries only; and 2. That a Treatment…

Read More

After a three week trial, the Jury returned to Alan’s client a verdict of $65,000.00 in general damages and $175,000.00 in income loss, and found the plaintiff 30% contributorily negligent for the collision. Ultimately, the plaintiff was awarded $168,000.00 gross of the deductible. The plaintiff offered to settle the action prior to trial for $170,000.00.…

Read More

The defendants brought a threshold motion at the completion of the trial, seeking an order declaring that Alan’s client, the plaintiff, had not sustained a permanent and serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function as a result of the motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 31, 2014 and did not meet…

Read More

Alan’s client, the plaintiff brought a motion after closing arguments to strike the jury. The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s comments in closing arguments that her claim was a “cash grab” was not directed to any evidence heard in the trial or rationality, was inflammatory, and prejudicial to the plaintiff because it implied that the…

Read More

The defendants brought a motion near the end of the trial to call a second physiatrist. The Court ruled that the defendants should be limited to one expert per specialty. Section 12 of the Evidence Act was intended to prevent calling multiple experts with the same specialty, as it incurs unnecessary expense, uses up scarce…

Read More

The defendants brought a motion part way through this civil jury trial, after the plaintiff’s evidence was complete. All witnesses called by the plaintiff, including experts, had been examined and cross examined, when the defendant sought leave to file a vocational report. The trial judge denied the motion on the following grounds: it would be…

Read More