Anna Szczurko

In an action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants moved to compel the plaintiff to attend independent medical examinations with both a physiatrist and a neuropsychologist.

The plaintiff agreed to the physiatrist but resisted the neuropsychologist.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the motion, finding that because the plaintiff claimed both physical and cognitive injuries, the defendants were entitled to examinations by experts qualified to assess those respective claims.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that two of the treatment plans in dispute were barred by the doctrine of res judicata as they had been previously decided.

For the remaining claims submitted via OCF-6 forms, the Tribunal awarded $1,571.13 for massage, personal training, and osteopathic services, applying the Professional Services Guideline rate despite the absence of an approved OCF-18, as the treatments were for symptom relief during a denial period.

The Tribunal also awarded $346.20 for another OCF-6, limited to the remaining balance of a previously approved treatment plan.

The Tribunal granted a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 for the respondent's unreasonable delay in adjusting one of the OCF-6 claims, along with interest on overdue payments.

The plaintiff tripped and fell on a city-owned sidewalk, sustaining serious injuries.

She alleged the municipality failed to keep the sidewalk in a reasonable state of repair.

The municipality argued the surface discontinuity did not exceed the two-centimetre threshold requiring repair under the Minimum Maintenance Standards.

Furthermore, the municipality argued its failure to conduct an annual inspection was due to the COVID-19 state of emergency and constituted a core policy decision.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the defect exceeded two centimetres.

In the alternative, the court held the municipality's decision to suspend sidewalk inspections during the pandemic was a core policy decision immune from liability, and the municipality established a statutory defence as it could not reasonably have known of the defect.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for occupational therapy, social rehabilitation counselling, rehabilitation therapy, and psychological services.

The Tribunal found the applicant entitled to the outstanding balance for occupational therapy and the full amount for rehabilitation therapy, as medical evidence supported their necessity for addressing cognitive and functional impairments.

However, the Tribunal denied the plans for social rehabilitation counselling and psychological services due to insufficient evidence, duplication, and non-compliance with the Professional Services Guideline.

Claims for a section 10 award and costs were also dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested reconsideration of a decision granting the applicant entitlement to certain treatment plans and expenses.

The insurer argued the Tribunal erred in law by approving a massage therapy rate above the guideline maximum and by ordering reimbursement for expenses incurred before treatment plans were submitted.

The Tribunal dismissed the first ground, noting the insurer failed to raise the hourly rate issue in the original hearing.

However, the Tribunal granted reconsideration on the second ground, finding it erred in law by violating s. 38(2) of the Schedule.

The decision was varied to deny reimbursement for expenses incurred prior to the submission of the relevant treatment plans.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's impairments were compatible with some useful functioning and did not reach the marked impairment threshold in three of four spheres of function.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims for attendant care benefits, finding the provider did not qualify as a professional under the Schedule and no economic loss was proven.

Claims for various treatment plans and a section 10 award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

The applicants, a mother and minor child, sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied certain treatment plans on the basis that the applicants' injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicants argued they should be excluded from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions (prior accident injuries, scoliosis), psychological impairments, and chronic pain syndrome.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide compelling medical evidence that their pre-existing conditions prevented maximal recovery within the MIG, or that their psychological issues and chronic pain were caused by the subject accident and warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal concluded that the injuries were predominantly minor, no benefits were payable, and denied the claims for interest, a special award, and costs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that pre-existing back and neck issues, ocular migraines, and accident-related chronic pain and psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-accident medical records did not establish an ongoing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limit.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's independent medical examination report over the applicant's physiotherapist and occupational therapist records, as the latter were not physicians capable of diagnosing chronic pain or psychological impairments.

The applicant was found to be subject to the MIG and entitled only to the remaining $38.51 of the limit, with claims for an award and costs dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend two Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) with a neuropsychologist and an orthopaedic surgeon, arguing that the plaintiff's alleged injuries (physical and brain injury) required assessment by distinct specialists.

The plaintiff opposed, citing timeliness and the sufficiency of a single IME, and sought conditions on the examinations, including pre-approval of questionnaires and a prohibition on ghostwriting.

The court granted leave for the motion, finding a substantial change in circumstances and that it was in the interests of justice.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend both IMEs, with the neuropsychological assessment contingent on the plaintiff first obtaining her own report.

The court rejected the plaintiff's demands regarding questionnaires and ghostwriting, affirming the statutory obligation to answer relevant questions and the expert's right to choose their method.

However, the court denied the defendants' request for reimbursement of a cancellation fee for a missed IME, as no prior court order or written consent for that specific examination existed.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions refused at his examination for discovery and to serve a further and better affidavit of documents.

The underlying action involves a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff driver struck the defendant pedestrian and claims damages for exacerbation of pre-existing PTSD.

The court ordered the plaintiff to produce various medical and counselling records, his ODSP application, and to answer questions regarding contributory negligence, but protected certain session notes due to privacy concerns.

The plaintiff was ordered to bear the initial costs of obtaining third-party productions.

Three sets of defendants brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims arising from a 30-vehicle winter highway pileup.

The court granted the motion for one defendant (Seney), finding his vehicle was far removed from the main collision and did not contribute to the plaintiffs' injuries.

However, the court dismissed the motions for the other two defendants (Gill and McCallum), holding that while the case against them was not strong, granting partial summary judgment posed a significant risk of inconsistent verdicts at trial, as a jury could still apportion liability to them for allegedly blocking escape routes.

Aviva sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding P.R.'s entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

Aviva argued the Tribunal made factual errors in finding P.R. was entitled to ongoing IRB and calculation errors regarding the quantum and overpayment.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request regarding ongoing entitlement, finding no significant errors of fact that would change the result.

However, the Vice-Chair granted the request in part to correct calculation errors, adjusting the weekly IRB rate to $400 and reducing the overpayment amount owed to Aviva from $7,885.31 to $7,193.31.

The applicant filed a request for reconsideration of a preliminary motion decision that found the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding to a hearing on non-earner benefits.

The Associate Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration because, under the amended Rule 18.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure, requests for reconsideration are only accepted for decisions that finally dispose of a matter.

Since other issues remained in dispute for an upcoming hearing, the motion decision did not finally dispose of the application.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied the applicant's claim for a non-earner benefit on the basis that she was self-employed at the time of the accident and therefore eligible for an income replacement benefit instead.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal more than two years after the denial.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denial was clear and unequivocal, triggering the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal also declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, finding no compelling evidence of a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit and noting the lack of merit in the claim given the applicant's self-employment status.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after slipping and falling on ice in a parking lot after exiting and locking her vehicle.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the Greenhalgh test and found that the use or operation of the vehicle was not a direct cause of the injuries, as the icy surface was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The Tribunal also held it lacked jurisdiction to apply the doctrine of estoppel against the insurer.

The application was dismissed.

The respondent, a self-employed dump truck driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRB) from the applicant insurer.

The insurer sought repayment of an alleged overpayment, arguing that collateral disability benefits received by the respondent should have been deducted.

The respondent disputed the deductibility of the collateral benefits and sought ongoing IRB up to the 104-week mark.

The Tribunal found that the collateral benefits were income continuation benefits and therefore deductible, entitling the insurer to repayment subject to the 12-month notice period.

However, the Tribunal also found that the respondent remained substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment and was entitled to ongoing IRB up to the 104-week mark.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied its motion for costs.

The insurer argued that the applicant's conduct, including withdrawing the application the day before the hearing and failing to provide sufficient medical evidence, was frivolous and vexatious.

The Associate Chair found that the applicant had provided some rational foundation for his claim and was not acting without reasonable cause.

The request for reconsideration was denied, as the applicant's conduct did not meet the threshold for a cost award under Rule 19.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend her statement of claim to add Middlesex County as a defendant in a motor vehicle accident claim involving alleged negligent road maintenance.

The motion was brought after the presumptive two-year limitation period had expired.

The plaintiff argued misnomer and discoverability.

The court rejected the misnomer argument because Middlesex County did not have notice of the claim within the limitation period.

However, the court granted leave to amend based on discoverability, finding that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence of due diligence to raise a triable issue as to whether the claim against the County was discoverable earlier.

The court also held that the plaintiff's alleged failure to provide timely statutory notice under the Municipal Act should be resolved on a full evidentiary record rather than at the pleadings stage.

The insurer brought an application seeking a determination that the respondent was not involved in an "accident" within the meaning of s. 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and therefore not entitled to accident benefits.

The court held that disputes concerning entitlement to benefits, including whether an accident occurred, must proceed through the statutory dispute resolution process under the Insurance Act.

Allowing an insurer to unilaterally seek a court determination would undermine the legislative scheme and expose insured persons to premature cost consequences.

The court also found that the application procedure was inappropriate where material facts were disputed and no agreed statement of facts existed.

The appellant appealed a jury award of $114,216.44 arising from a motor vehicle collision, arguing the trial judge made several errors including admitting a WSIB statement of claim, failing to strike the jury due to improper cross-examination, and providing an inadequate jury charge.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's costs award regarding disbursements incurred after a Rule 49 settlement offer.

The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in the trial's conduct and insufficient evidence on the record to prove an error in the costs award.