Chantalle Youkhana

The plaintiff physician sued the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario for abuse of process and intentional infliction of mental distress after his medical license was revoked.

The College moved for summary judgment or to strike the claim.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the action, finding that the plaintiff's claims were incapable of proof due to the absolute bar on admitting College proceeding records under s. 36(3) of the Regulated Health Professions Act.

Furthermore, the College and its committees were protected by absolute privilege, judicial immunity, and statutory good faith immunity under s. 38 of the Act.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought reimbursement for visitor expenses under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule after his family travelled from England to visit him.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the expenses were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and did not require the assistance of five family members from overseas.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed, rendering the insurer's limitation period defence moot.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued her injuries, including chronic pain and pre-existing conditions, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly soft-tissue strains and sprains, and she failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition or chronic pain with functional impairment that would preclude recovery within the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and claims for the treatment plan, interest, and a section 10 award were denied.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and that he failed to establish a psychological impairment that would remove him from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had already been exhausted, the Tribunal concluded the applicant was not entitled to the claimed treatment plans.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical benefits and assessments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the functional ability evaluation and chronic pain assessment were reasonable and necessary, given the applicant's consistent pain complaints and the persuasive report of a chronic pain specialist.

However, the claims for chiropractic treatment, a neuropsychological assessment, and an orthopaedic assessment were dismissed for lack of supporting objective medical evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied certain physiotherapy and psychological treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, noting the absence of any documented pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery.

The Tribunal accepted the insurer's expert evidence over the applicant's psychological assessment, concluding that the disputed treatment plans and assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.