Andre Jacques Bourdon

The applicant sought entitlement to a non-earner benefit, several physiotherapy treatment plans, out-of-pocket expenses, an award, and costs following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of his pre-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal granted one physiotherapy treatment plan due to the insurer's defective denial notice under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, and granted another on the basis that it was reasonable and necessary to treat ongoing neck pain.

Claims for out-of-pocket expenses were dismissed because no treatment plans had been submitted, barring recovery under s. 38(2).

Claims for an award and costs were also dismissed.

Following a successful liability trial where the defendants were found 100% liable for a slip and fall, the court addressed the issues of prejudgment interest, postjudgment interest, and costs.

The court awarded prejudgment interest from the date damages were settled (May 4, 2020) to the judgment date (May 2, 2024), and postjudgment interest on the settled damages amount of $65,000.

For costs, the court determined that the simplified procedure cost cap of Rule 76.12.1 did not apply because the action was commenced before January 1, 2020, despite later conversion to simplified procedure.

Applying Rule 49.10, the plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs until November 26, 2015, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixed at $80,000 for fees plus HST, and $26,529.07 for disbursements.

The applicant sought entitlement to the unapproved balances of four treatment plans for social rehabilitation counselling following a motor vehicle accident.

The dispute centered on the hourly rate of a social worker, the cost of completing the treatment plan forms, and transportation expenses.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the higher hourly rate was reasonable and necessary, as there was insufficient evidence of specialized training or psychotherapy services.

The Tribunal also denied the transportation expenses and provider travel time, noting the applicant did not meet the catastrophic impairment exception for the 50 km deductible.

The application was dismissed, and requests for interest and costs were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

She claimed $112.98 for a camera purchased for a virtual assessment and $353.60 for travel costs to her mother's home for the holidays.

The Tribunal found that the camera was a personal expense and not payable under the Schedule.

The Tribunal also found that the travel costs were not related to treatment, counselling, training, assessments, or examinations, and were therefore not reasonable and necessary transportation expenses.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Carmen Ranger, brought an action under the Occupiers' Liability Act for damages sustained from a slip and fall on ice in a pedestrian crosswalk at a shopping mall.

The defendants, including the property owner, property manager (Triovest), and snow removal contractor (Pioneer), were found collectively liable.

The court found that Triovest failed to implement a reasonable winter maintenance system, specifically lacking clear provisions for inspection, monitoring, and response to freezing rain, and failing to prioritize high-traffic areas like the crosswalk.

Pioneer also failed its implied duty to inspect and monitor the property and respond to icy conditions.

The court rejected the defendants' claim of contributory negligence by the plaintiff, finding her actions reasonable.

The applicant sought entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident while being transported in a police van.

The insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to comply with section 33 production requests for relevant medical records.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence or persuasive analysis to prove that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary for accident-related impairments.