Barbara L. Legate

The infant plaintiff suffered hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy during childbirth, resulting in cerebral palsy.

The plaintiffs sued the hospital, physicians, and nurses for negligence during delivery.

The defendants refused to admit they owed a duty of care to the infant plaintiff, arguing that recent case law precluded such a duty.

The motion judge granted a declaration that a duty of care was owed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendants' appeal, affirming the well-established principle that an infant, once born alive, may sue for damages sustained as a result of negligence during labour and delivery.

The applicant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought an order for interim benefits pending her arbitration hearing.

The insurer had reduced her weekly benefits to recover an alleged overpayment.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for interim benefits, finding that the applicant failed to establish that her need was urgent and could not await a full hearing.

The evidence of financial hardship provided in her affidavit was deemed too vague and incomplete to justify an interim order.

The appellant insurer sought to appeal an interim arbitration order that refused to order the respondent to produce his farm ledgers for 1997 and 1998.

The Director's Delegate rejected the appeal, noting that appeals from interim orders are generally not allowed under the Dispute Resolution Practice Code to avoid delay and minimize complexity.

The Delegate found that allowing the appeal would be an undue intrusion into the ongoing arbitration process, as the arbitrator was in a better position to evaluate the relative merits of the parties' positions regarding the necessity of the documents.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

The applicant alleged that an application for arbitration was mailed within the two-year limitation period but was lost by the postal service or the Commission.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to provide documentation proving the Commission received the application before the limitation period expired.

As arbitrators have no jurisdiction to extend the limitation period, the application was dismissed as out of time.

The appellant insurer appealed an interim arbitration decision, arguing that the arbitrator should not continue to conduct the hearing due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal to proceed solely on the issue of whether the arbitrator could continue.

The Director's Delegate found that the combination of procedural confusion, the rulings made by the arbitrator, and the contentious nature of the preliminary hearing established a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal was allowed, and it was ordered that the arbitration hearing must be conducted by a different arbitrator.

The insurer appealed an arbitration decision that found the insured met the post-156 week test for weekly income benefits and ordered the insurer to pay ongoing benefits and certain medical and rehabilitation accounts.

The insurer argued the arbitrator failed to properly analyze surveillance evidence and conflicting medical opinions regarding the insured's pain-based limitations.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator provided an adequate explanation for her conclusions, properly considered the surveillance evidence, and reasonably determined that the disputed accounts were necessary expenses.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision awarding the respondent ongoing weekly income benefits beyond the 156-week mark.

The respondent, a student at the time of the accident, suffered from chronic pain syndrome and post-traumatic headaches.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's refusal to grant an adjournment for late-requested medical assessments, finding the request untimely.

The Delegate also upheld the finding that the respondent was continuously prevented from engaging in any suitable occupation or employment, noting the uncontradicted medical evidence supporting her severe limitations.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for 156 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing she was capable of returning to work.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant suffered from chronic pain and was disabled from full-time work commensurate with her background, she was capable of part-time employment.

The arbitrator ordered the resumption of weekly income benefits but allowed the insurer to deduct 80% of the income available from part-time employment under section 15 of the Schedule.

The applicant was also awarded certain rehabilitation expenses, but her claim for a special award was dismissed.

The Applicant was injured when he rode his bicycle into a pothole after being distracted by the sound of a car engine starting.

He applied for statutory accident benefits.

The preliminary issue was whether the incident constituted an 'accident' under section 2 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Arbitrator found that the starting of a car engine constitutes the 'use or operation' of an automobile, and that this use indirectly caused the Applicant's injuries by distracting him and causing him to hit the pothole.

The Arbitrator concluded the Applicant was injured as a result of an accident.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the Insurer terminated them after 156 weeks.

The Applicant, who was a prospective university student at the time of the accident, claimed ongoing entitlement under section 12 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant's essential occupational tasks included those of an undergraduate student.

Accepting the medical evidence that the Applicant suffered from chronic pain and post-traumatic headaches, the arbitrator concluded that she was continuously prevented from engaging in full-time post-secondary studies or any comparable employment.

The Applicant was awarded ongoing weekly income benefits and her arbitration expenses, but her claim for a special award was dismissed.