Christopher Anthony Obagi

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired.

She argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by allowing the respondent to cross-examine its own expert neurologist and by rejecting the expert's 5% whole person impairment rating for headaches without notice.

She also argued the Tribunal misapprehended evidence regarding her incontinence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the applicant had notice of the respondent's challenges to the expert's report, the Tribunal was entitled to reject ratings not supported by the AMA Guides, and the evidence supported the finding that there was no post-accident exacerbation of incontinence.

This is an appeal from an interlocutory decision that declined to order the production of unredacted medical records.

The underlying action involves a personal injury claim where the plaintiff experienced a psychotic episode, and their medical records contained delusions about third parties.

The respondents had redacted these specific details from the records.

The appeal court upheld the associate judge's decision, finding that the redacted content was irrelevant to the diagnosis or severity of the psychotic episode and that there was a valid reason (protection of innocent third parties, including a minor, from stigma) for the non-disclosure.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The defendant Metrolinx brought a motion seeking an order to compel the injured plaintiff, J.E., to attend an in-person psychiatric assessment.

Metrolinx argued this was necessary to respond to evidence regarding J.E.'s psychiatric conditions, including a recent schizophrenia diagnosis.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing their pleadings did not attribute the recent psychiatric conditions to the incident and that their expert, a neuropsychologist, could address the diagnoses.

The court dismissed Metrolinx's motion, finding that Metrolinx had not established the necessity of the in-person assessment to level the playing field, especially since their own psychiatrist had already provided a paper review report addressing causation.

The court emphasized that the plaintiff's pleadings did not allege the 2017 incident caused the 2023 psychiatric conditions and that the role of treating healthcare professionals as participant experts is limited by the court's gatekeeper function.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to produce unredacted copies of the plaintiff's hospital records relating to a recent psychotic episode.

The plaintiffs had redacted portions containing false, delusional allegations of criminal conduct against third parties.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the redacted information was irrelevant to the personal injury claim and its disclosure would cause significant harm to the plaintiff and innocent third parties.

The plaintiffs' cross-motion for a sealing order and anonymization was adjourned to allow compliance with the Practice Direction regarding notice to the media for discretionary publication bans, with an interim publication ban granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to implement a Pierringer settlement agreement with 18 of the defendants following a multi-vehicle collision, and to strike the jury notice filed by the non-settling defendants due to anticipated COVID-19 trial delays.

The court granted the order implementing the settlement with some modifications to the proposed terms, including a mechanism to enforce the settling defendants' discovery obligations.

The motion to strike the jury notice was dismissed as premature, as no pre-trial conference had yet occurred to determine the expected length of the trial.

The applicant sought attendant care and housekeeping benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The parties agreed on the quantum of benefits owed for services provided by the applicant's daughters.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the agreed amounts, plus interest on any overdue payments.

The applicant's request for a special award was dismissed, as the Tribunal found no evidence that the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed payment.

Jevco Insurance Company sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision awarding C.W. retroactive Attendant Care Benefits with interest.

Jevco argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact regarding the award of interest, the imposition of a fiduciary duty, findings on Jevco's coverage denial, and the application of the pay-first provisions under O. Reg. 283/95.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that Jevco's non-coverage position in the related tort proceeding justified C.W.'s delay in applying for benefits, and that the unique circumstances of the case meant the pay-first provisions did not apply.

The original decision was upheld.

The defendants appealed a motion judge's decision to strike their jury notices in two related motor vehicle accident actions.

The motion judge had struck the jury notices solely due to anticipated delays caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, without relying on specific evidence regarding the length of the delay or its impact on the parties or the administration of justice.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while delay and the pandemic's impact on the administration of justice are valid considerations, striking a jury notice based on a general assertion of delay without specific, localized evidence is arbitrary.

The appeal was granted without prejudice to the plaintiffs renewing the motion with proper evidence.

The plaintiffs commenced a tort action and an accident benefits action arising from a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The actions were ordered to be tried together before a jury in April 2020, but the trial was suspended due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Facing indefinite delays for civil jury trials, the plaintiffs moved to strike the jury notices.

The court granted leave to bring the motion and struck the jury notices, finding that the real and substantial prejudice caused by the delay outweighed the defendants' substantive right to a jury trial.

The court concluded that justice would be better served by proceeding to trial in a timely manner before a judge alone.

Following a trial where the plaintiffs were awarded damages for a motor vehicle accident, the defendant brought a motion for a conditional assignment order of the plaintiff's Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS).

The parties disagreed on the effective date of the assignment.

The court held that the effective date of the assignment is the date of the reasons for judgment, but the assignment is conditional upon and triggered by the payment of the judgment in full.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought the cost of various catastrophic impairment assessments.

The respondent insurer partially denied the treatment plan, arguing the assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

Following a written hearing, the adjudicator found that only the Functional Review Evaluation was reasonable and necessary to procure accurate digital measurements under the AMA Guides.

The remaining assessments, including the AMPS, collateral interview, file review, and consensus opinion, were deemed duplicative or not essential.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the Functional Review Evaluation plus interest.

The applicant, a pedestrian who sustained catastrophic injuries when struck by a vehicle, sought retroactive attendant care benefits from the date of the accident in 2007 until she formally applied in 2015.

The respondent insurer had denied coverage in a related tort action for years before finally admitting it insured the vehicle.

The Tribunal found that it was initially impossible, and later impractical, for the applicant to submit her application earlier due to the insurer's non-coverage position and failure to notify her of her rights.

The Tribunal awarded retroactive attendant care benefits of $6,000 per month with interest accruing from the date of her hospital discharge in 2007.

The plaintiff pedestrian was struck by the defendant's vehicle while crossing a street.

The defendant was found 100% liable.

The plaintiff had a highly complex pre-existing medical history, including chronic pain, sarcoidosis, and melanoma.

The court found the plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and other injuries from the collision, which exacerbated his pre-existing conditions and impaired his ability to manage them.

The court assessed damages for the plaintiff and his family members, but reduced the total awards by 25% applying the crumbling skull principle, as the plaintiff would have been detrimentally affected by his pre-existing conditions regardless of the accident.

The injuries were found to meet the statutory threshold.

The plaintiff in a slip and fall action brought a motion to compel the attendance of a specific store manager for examination for discovery on behalf of the corporate defendants.

The defendants refused to produce the manager, providing medical evidence that she was suffering from terminal cancer and was medically unfit to attend.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants met the heavy onus required to excuse a selected corporate representative from discovery on medical grounds.

Costs were awarded to the defendants.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss two actions arising from a motor vehicle accident in Ontario.

The defendant argued that because the deceased and the defendant were residents of Quebec, Quebec's no-fault automobile insurance regime and Civil Code should apply, precluding the tort actions.

The court dismissed the motion, applying the lex loci delicti rule from Tolofson v. Jensen.

The court held that Ontario substantive law applies to torts committed in Ontario, allowing the plaintiffs, including derivative claimants under the Family Law Act, to proceed with their actions.

During a personal injury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs objected to the admissibility of an expert report from the defendant's occupational therapist regarding the injured plaintiff's attendant care needs.

The plaintiffs argued the report did not comply with a previous court ruling that limited the expert's evidence to the practical delivery model of care rather than the quantum of hours required.

The court agreed with the plaintiffs, finding the report went beyond the permitted scope by critiquing the plaintiff's expert and opining on the number of hours needed.

The court ruled that only specific portions of the report addressing the cost and availability of personal support workers and handyman services were admissible.

During the second week of a medical malpractice trial, the defendant physician sought leave to bring a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the claim against him.

The court dismissed the motion for leave, finding that the defendant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the motion would unduly delay the ongoing trial, and there was insufficient evidence that a summary judgment motion would be a proportionate or cost-effective alternative to continuing the trial.

The plaintiff pedestrian sought leave to amend a statement of claim arising from a motor vehicle accident to add the defendant driver’s insurer as a defendant and to seek declaratory relief regarding insurance coverage.

The insurer denied coverage and argued that under s. 258(1) of the Insurance Act a plaintiff cannot sue an insurer until judgment is obtained against the insured.

The court held that while the statute prevents a direct claim for payment before judgment, it does not preclude a claim for declaratory relief regarding coverage between interested parties.

Given the broad jurisdiction to grant declarations and the goals of efficient and proportionate litigation, the proposed amendments were legally tenable and would allow earlier resolution of the coverage dispute.

Leave to amend was therefore granted with the exception of a paragraph seeking a declaration that the insurer was obligated to pay any judgment.