The plaintiff appealed a trial judge's decision finding she did not meet the threshold requirements under s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act.
The plaintiff argued the trial judge committed palpable and overriding errors by failing to explain his preference for conflicting medical evidence and by omitting reference to the evidence of her chiropractor.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the standard of review is palpable and overriding error, and finding no such error in the trial judge's careful review of the evidence.
