Wong v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp., 2015 MBQB 173

JudgeSchulman, J.
CourtCourt of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
Case DateOctober 29, 2015
JurisdictionManitoba
Citations2015 MBQB 173;(2015), 321 Man.R.(2d) 204 (QB)

Wong v. MPIC (2015), 321 Man.R.(2d) 204 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. NO.010

Lana Fern Wong (plaintiff) v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation (defendant)

(CI 15-01-94390; 2015 MBQB 173)

Indexed As: Wong v. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Schulman, J.

October 29, 2015.

Summary:

Wong was injured in a motor vehicle accident. She received Personal Injury Protection Plan benefits under the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act. Wong sought payment of further amounts for chiropractic treatments and for permanent impairment indemnity. The Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. (MPIC) rejected both claims. Having exhausted all of her rights of review under the Act, Wong sued MPIC, seeking a total of $750,000. MPIC moved to dismiss the action, asserting that the (1) court lacked jurisdiction and (2) claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench granted the motion, dismissing the action.

Insurance - Topic 5010.1

Automobile insurance - Compulsory government schemes - Limitation on causes of action - General (incl. when applicable) - Wong was injured in a motor vehicle accident - She received Personal Injury Protection Plan (PIPP) benefits under the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act - Wong sought payment of further amounts for chiropractic treatments and for permanent impairment indemnity - The Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. (MPIC) rejected both claims - Having exhausted all of her rights of review under the Act, Wong sued MPIC, seeking a total of $750,000 - MPIC moved to dismiss the action, asserting that the (1) court lacked jurisdiction and (2) claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench granted the motion - Section 169(1) of the Act gave MPIC exclusive jurisdiction to determine PIPP benefits - This was supported by ss. 188 (decisions not subject to appeal to court) and 72 (no tort action) - Section 21 (action for recovery of benefits) did not assist Wong as it did not apply to PIPP benefits - Further, it was plain and obvious that the statement of claim did not disclose a cause of action due to the following: (1) the statutory bar; (2) as an attempt to circumvent the Act, the claim was an abuse of process; and (3) the claim did not contain the essential elements of a cause of action.

Practice - Topic 5359.1

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Lack of jurisdiction - [See Insurance - Topic 5010.1 ].

Practice - Topic 5361

Dismissal of action - Grounds - General and want of prosecution - Abuse of process - [See Insurance - Topic 5010.1 ].

Statutes Noticed:

Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. P-215; C.C.S.M., c. P-215, sect. 21 [para. 9]; sect. 72 [para. 8]; sect. 169(1) [para. 6]; sect. 188 [para. 7].

Counsel:

L.F. Wong, appeared in person;

Trevor M. Brown, for the defendant.

This motion was heard by Schulman, J., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment on October 29, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Smith v. Zrobek, 2018 MBQB 22
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
    • 5 Febrero 2018
    ...it there to the fullest.   [15]      In support, counsel for MPI relies upon the decision in Wong v. MPIC, 2015 MBQB 173, 321 Man.R. (2d) 204, wherein Schulman J. dismissed an action against MPI in this court in which the plaintiff sought to recover Part 2 bene......
1 cases
  • Smith v. Zrobek, 2018 MBQB 22
    • Canada
    • Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)
    • 5 Febrero 2018
    ...it there to the fullest.   [15]      In support, counsel for MPI relies upon the decision in Wong v. MPIC, 2015 MBQB 173, 321 Man.R. (2d) 204, wherein Schulman J. dismissed an action against MPI in this court in which the plaintiff sought to recover Part 2 bene......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT