Celina Gisela Aguero

The plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy city sidewalk, sustaining a severe proximal humerus fracture that required surgery and resulted in permanent limitations in her right shoulder.

The defendant municipality admitted liability, leaving only damages to be assessed.

The court awarded $125,000 in general damages, $64,723 for future care costs, and $2,724.26 for out-of-pocket expenses, plus a subrogated OHIP claim.

Claims for past and future income loss were dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish a real and substantial risk of pecuniary loss.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, as the medical evidence confirmed only minor soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's expert reports diagnosing chronic pain and psychological impairments, finding them unreliable and unsupported by contemporaneous medical records.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the application for further medical and rehabilitation benefits was dismissed.

The applicant sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) more than 104 weeks after a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to work due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The respondent insurer terminated IRBs based on insurer examinations indicating the applicant could perform alternative employment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's condition had improved, she had reached maximum medical improvement, and she possessed transferable skills suitable for roles such as a beauty salon attendant or cashier.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to meet the post-104 week disability test.

Additionally, the applicant's claim for the cost of a chronic pain assessment was denied because it was incurred before submitting a treatment plan, contrary to section 38(2) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants brought motions to compel answers to refusals and undertakings given during the plaintiff’s examination for discovery in a civil action alleging negligent investigation, defamation, abuse of statutory powers, breach of fiduciary duty, and mental distress arising from an erroneous police press release naming the plaintiff in relation to child pornography charges.

The court considered the relevance and proportionality of various discovery questions concerning related defamation actions, settlement amounts, the plaintiff’s health and reputation, his relationship with a convicted roommate, and mitigation of damages.

The court held that certain questions relating to settlements in related actions and mitigation were relevant and should be answered, while many others were properly refused as irrelevant or disproportionate.

The plaintiff was ordered to re-attend discovery to answer specific questions and to satisfy outstanding undertakings within 60 days.