Brennan Kahler

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2011 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed entitlement to assistive devices (including an iPhone and Apple Watch, and incontinence supplies), prescription medication, mileage expenses, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to incontinence supplies and one claim for mileage expenses, as they were reasonable and necessary.

The claims for the iPhone, Apple Watch, prescription medication, and remaining mileage expenses were dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was also dismissed, but interest was awarded on the outstanding amounts.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessments which attributed her functional decline to pre-existing conditions and age rather than the accident.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant's claims for attendant care and treatment plans were barred because the non-catastrophic policy limit of $65,000 had been fully exhausted and there was no catastrophic impairment designation.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied a treatment plan for home modifications.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by misapprehending evidence related to causation and the characterization of his impairments.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the original decision applied the correct legal test for causation and provided thorough reasons for the weight assigned to the evidence.

The Adjudicator concluded the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the weight of the evidence rather than demonstrating a reviewable error.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a mild traumatic brain injury, a pre-existing knee condition, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support a traumatic brain injury or that the pre-existing knee condition precluded recovery within the MIG.

While the applicant's assessor diagnosed Chronic Pain Syndrome, the Tribunal found no substantial functional impairment, as the applicant continued to work full-time and manage daily activities.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, concluding there was no clinically significant psychological impairment.

The applicant was held to remain within the MIG but was entitled to the remaining $1,118.77 of the MIG limit for incurred expenses, plus interest.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the insurer's denial of several treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to a chronic pain assessment, as it would duplicate extensive assessments already completed by an orthopaedic surgeon and a neurologist.

However, the Tribunal granted the claims for physiotherapy and occupational therapy for driving anxiety, relying on medical evidence that the applicant had not reached maximal medical improvement.

The claim for assistive devices was largely denied due to a lack of supporting evidence, though a documentation fee was approved.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue benefits but declined to order a special award, finding the insurer's denials were not unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, physiotherapy, medical cannabis, an emotional support dog, and home modifications.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits, physiotherapy, or home modifications, as they were not reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to reimbursement for incurred medical cannabis expenses to manage her chronic pain syndrome, and to an emotional support dog to address her accident-related anxiety, as she had already attempted frontline treatments.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue payments but declined to grant an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding no unreasonable delay by the insurer.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision which found she had not provided a reasonable excuse for the delay in reporting her intent to seek accident benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made an error of law regarding the application of sections 32, 34, and 55 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the issue and raise new arguments not presented at the initial hearing.

The Tribunal affirmed its original application of the Schedule.

The plaintiff was involved in a head-on motor vehicle collision caused by the defendants.

The defendants did not contest liability.

The trial focused on the extent of the plaintiff's injuries and damages.

The plaintiff claimed to have suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and psychiatric injuries, rendering him unable to return to his employment as a Lead Hand electrician for the City of Guelph.

The defendants argued the plaintiff's injuries were exaggerated and that he could return to work with accommodation.

The court accepted the evidence of the plaintiff and his treating medical experts, finding that he suffered permanent and serious impairments, including cognitive deficits, vision and hearing issues, and chronic pain.

The court awarded the plaintiff $225,000 in general damages, $38,177.40 in special damages, $75,308 for past lost wages, $1,282,074 for future income loss, and $735,092 for future care costs.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer a personal injury action from Barrie to Toronto.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was brought late and for tactical reasons.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that the defendants failed to raise the issue until after the pretrial conference and that transferring the action to Toronto would result in significant delay in securing a trial date.

The defendant municipality brought a motion to transfer a personal injury action from Barrie to London.

The plaintiffs, who were injured in a bicycle-motor vehicle collision in London but now reside in Sarnia, opposed the transfer and requested the matter be transferred to Sarnia instead.

The court applied the holistic test under Rule 13.1.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding that the collision occurred in London, the municipal defendant's snow clearing practices were at issue, and London offered significantly better judicial resources and courtroom availability, the court ordered the proceeding transferred to London.

The plaintiffs brought a motion pursuant to Rule 7.08 for approval of a settlement of the claims brought by the minor plaintiffs arising from a motor vehicle accident where the stepfather/father was struck by a vehicle while crossing a pedestrian crosswalk.

The proposed settlement was for $150,000, with $2,500 allocated to each minor plaintiff.

The court considered the liability risks, including the likelihood of contributory negligence and the application of the Family Law Act deductible.

The court found the settlement to be fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the minor plaintiffs, and approved the settlement.

The court denied approval of a settlement for a party under disability due to significant deficiencies in the motion material.

These deficiencies included insufficient medical evidence to assess the injured party's present and future needs, lack of full disclosure regarding a companion tort action and any settlement offers therein, and inadequate details for the proposed allocation of settlement funds.

Furthermore, the court found insufficient information regarding a loan from counsel to the applicant and the fairness and reasonableness of the contingency fee agreement, which appeared to conflate tort and accident benefits claims.

The court also dismissed the request to seal the court record, emphasizing the high bar for such an extraordinary order.

The matter was to be re-submitted after the identified deficiencies were addressed.

The plaintiffs sought substantial indemnity costs after successfully opposing a motion by the defendant, The Corporation of the Township of Severn, to compel production of an unedited videotaped witness statement.

The court found the plaintiffs' offer to settle, made four days before the motion, did not comply with Rule 49.10 but was a genuine effort to settle and should be considered under Rule 49.13.

Considering the offer, the medium-high complexity of the motion, its unnecessity, and the importance of litigation privilege, the court awarded the plaintiffs substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer, fixed at $9,500.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's personal injury action arising from a bicycle accident allegedly caused by the defendants' dog, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of over $294,000.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, finding that the defendants' settlement offers lacked a substantive element of compromise and the plaintiff's conduct was not reprehensible.

Furthermore, the court reduced the defendants' partial indemnity costs by 40% to penalize their counsel's failure to disclose surveillance evidence, veterinary records, and other documents prior to trial, which undermined the policy of early settlement and full disclosure.

The Court of Appeal issued a costs endorsement following an appeal.

As success was divided, the court ordered that each side bear its own costs for both the motion and the appeal, making no order for costs in the Court of Appeal or before the lower court judge.

The plaintiffs were involved in a motor vehicle accident and initially named the municipality as a defendant in their notice of action.

They subsequently filed a statement of claim and simultaneously filed a notice of discontinuance against the municipality.

After the limitation period expired, the plaintiffs sought to add the municipality back as a defendant, citing the discoverability principle upon learning that a dangerous shoulder drop-off may have contributed to the accident.

The motion judge declared the notice of discontinuance invalid but alternatively allowed the municipality to be added as a defendant.

The Court of Appeal held that the notice of discontinuance was valid, but upheld the motion judge's discretionary decision to add the municipality as a defendant based on the discoverability principle.