Colleen Burn

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied treatment plans for a neuro-optometric assessment, prolotherapy, and psychological services.

The Tribunal found the neuro-optometric assessment was not reasonable and necessary, as the supporting medical reports were either not contemporaneous or did not recommend further assessments.

The Tribunal approved the prolotherapy plan, preferring the in-person assessment of the applicant's physiatrist over the respondent's remote assessment.

The claim for the balance of psychological services was dismissed, as the applicant failed to justify the need for an updated assessment or the higher hourly rate for a psychotherapist.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a decision awarding the applicant income replacement benefits and two treatment plans.

The insurer argued the Tribunal reversed the evidentiary onus, misapplied the legal test for benefits, and made erroneous findings of fact regarding validity testing.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that it had properly weighed the totality of the medical evidence without reversing the onus, and that any omissions regarding validity testing did not meet the high threshold for reconsideration.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) and two treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on multiple independent medical examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met the tests for both pre-104 and post-104 IRB, as he suffered from a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment and a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, noting that the respondent's assessors evaluated the applicant in silos and failed to provide an integrated assessment of his physical and psychological impairments.

The treatment plans for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment were deemed reasonable and necessary.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed, as the respondent's conduct was not found to be unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, an in-home functional assessment, and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant's impairments were a natural progression of pre-existing conditions.

The Tribunal found that the accident aggravated the applicant's pre-existing physical and psychological impairments, making the proposed treatment plans reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for the treatment plans with interest, but declined to order a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664, finding the insurer's initial denial was not unreasonable based on the medical evidence it had at the time.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike a jury notice and sought leave to bring the motion after the action had been set down for trial.

The court denied leave, finding no evidentiary basis to explain the significant delay in bringing the motion.

Furthermore, even if leave had been granted, the court would not have struck the jury notice.

The defendants had served the jury notice prior to January 1, 2020, thereby preserving their substantive legal right to a civil jury trial under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 76, despite the action originally proceeding under simplified procedure.

The plaintiff's arguments regarding proportionality, efficiency, and judicial resources were deemed insufficient to override this vested right.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the plaintiffs were awarded $5,000, a fraction of the $1.5 million claimed.

The defendant had made a Rule 49 offer of $350,000 prior to trial.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 and the impact of the Rule 49 offer.

The court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $100,000 and the defendant's costs at $200,000, ordering the plaintiffs to pay the net costs of $100,000 to the defendant, less the amount of their judgment.

The plaintiff, Rosemary Sheldon, succeeded in her personal injury action against the defendant, Manuel Reyna, following a 15-day judge-alone trial.

This endorsement addresses the plaintiff's requests for correction of a damages award for gardening services, prejudgment interest, postjudgment interest, costs on a partial indemnity basis, and an order for periodic payments.

The court confirmed the total judgment amount, awarded prejudgment and postjudgment interest, and granted partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, with a minor reduction in disbursements.

An order for periodic payments was also made.

The plaintiff was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision for which the defendant admitted liability.

The court found that the plaintiff sustained a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function, specifically chronic pain and somatic symptom disorder.

The court awarded $100,000 in non-pecuniary general damages, $394,800.32 for future loss of income, $19,655.37 for out-of-pocket expenses, and various amounts for future care costs, while dismissing the claim for past loss of income.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and medical and rehabilitation benefits for custom orthotics, chiropractic treatment, and massage therapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting that his pre-accident activities were already severely limited by chronic pain and reliance on his wife for activities of daily living.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits, finding insufficient medical evidence to prove they were reasonable and necessary, and accepting the respondent's insurance examination evidence.

The plaintiffs brought a motion in writing for approval of an infant settlement arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident.

The court found the settlement amount reasonable but declined to approve it immediately due to procedural deficiencies.

The court required further evidence, including the 17-year-old minor's consent, alternative proposals for managing the settlement funds instead of paying them into court for seven months, a copy of the minutes of settlement, and a detailed breakdown of the solicitor-client account.

The motion was adjourned with the judge remaining seized.

During a personal injury trial, the plaintiff's counsel brought a motion under Rule 53.01(3) to recall the plaintiff as a witness after new documents were produced during the cross-examination of the plaintiff's family doctor.

The documents, which had not been disclosed prior to trial, contained notes and handwriting suggesting the plaintiff was attempting to manage her medical case.

The court granted the motion, finding that the interests of justice and trial fairness required giving the plaintiff an opportunity to explain the newly produced documents, and imposed restrictions on counsel's communications with the plaintiff prior to her recall.

The applicant sought payment for various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied several out-of-pocket expenses because the applicant failed to submit a Treatment and Assessment Plan prior to incurring them, as required by section 38(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

However, the Tribunal awarded $14,266.59 for prescription medications, finding they fell under the exception in section 38(2)(c)(i) and were reasonable and necessary to treat accident-related physical and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal also approved a chiropractic treatment plan aimed at pain reduction, while denying a physiotherapy plan that had previously shown no improvement.

Interest was awarded on the payable benefits.

Following a seven-week personal injury jury trial, the court determined post-trial adjustments to the $2.3 million verdict.

The court ruled that recent Insurance Act amendments increasing statutory deductibles applied retrospectively, but changes to pre-judgment interest did not.

Applying the 'silos of deductibility' approach, the court deducted the plaintiff's $900,000 Statutory Accident Benefits (SABs) settlement from the tort award, but apportioned the deduction 50-50 between the defendant and a non-party driver who had previously settled, matching the jury's liability finding.

The plaintiff's final judgment of $500,827 slightly exceeded the defendant's Rule 49 offer, entitling the plaintiff to costs, which the court fixed at $100,000 plus disbursements.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a mental or behavioural disorder.

The insurer's assessors concluded she had only a moderate impairment, while her own assessors found a marked impairment in the area of adaptation.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's inability to work was too narrow a basis for finding a marked impairment in adaptation.

Considering her overall ability to cope with pain and manage daily activities, the arbitrator concluded the applicant had only a moderate impairment in all four areas of function and therefore did not meet the definition of catastrophic impairment.

The appellant appealed an order striking the jury and the dismissal of her action.

The court held that appellate review of an order striking a jury is very limited and found that the trial judge considered the relevant factors, applied correct principles, and exercised discretion properly.

The court also upheld the rejection of the medical expert evidence, accepting that the trial judge was entitled to find the opinions were based on incomplete information from the plaintiff and were not presented objectively.

The additional grounds of appeal lacked merit.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for fitness classes, chiropractic and massage treatments, acupuncture, and housekeeping expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain and reasonably required the fitness classes and ongoing chiropractic and massage treatments.

The claim for acupuncture was also allowed, as the applicant established a prima facie case for its reasonableness.

However, the claim for housekeeping and home maintenance expenses was dismissed because the evidence, including a functional capacity evaluation, showed the applicant was capable of performing the tasks by pacing herself.

Finally, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay a special award of $350 for unreasonably withholding chiropractic benefits pending dispute resolution.