C. Townsend

The defendants brought a motion to exclude a SPECT scan from being shown to the jury by the plaintiff's expert neurologist, arguing it was novel science and unreliable for diagnosing a mild traumatic brain injury.

The court dismissed the motion, distinguishing this case from previous decisions where SPECT scans were used as the sole diagnostic tool by a nuclear medicine specialist.

The court permitted the clinical neurologist to refer to the SPECT scan because it was used as one of many diagnostic tools to confirm a clinical diagnosis, and the nuclear medicine specialist's opinions were redacted to prevent undue influence on the jury.

The plaintiff was struck by a TTC bus and awarded damages for past loss of income at trial.

The defendants brought a motion to deduct the non-earner benefits (NEBs) the plaintiff received under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule from the tort award for income loss, arguing that recent case law and legislative changes placed NEBs in the 'income loss silo'.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that it remained bound by the Court of Appeal's decision in Walker v. Ritchie, which established that NEBs compensate for loss of enjoyment of life and are not deductible from income loss awards.

The court found that obiter comments in a subsequent Court of Appeal decision did not overturn this established principle.

The plaintiff was struck by a transit bus while crossing the street, sustaining multiple fractures to her left ankle and knee.

Following a jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $175,000 in general damages, the defendants brought a motion arguing the plaintiff did not meet the statutory threshold under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed the medical evidence, preferring the plaintiff's orthopaedic expert who found objective evidence of post-traumatic osteoarthritis and permanent restricted range of motion.

The court concluded the plaintiff sustained a permanent and serious impairment of an important physical function that substantially interfered with her activities of daily living.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, entitling the plaintiff to the jury's award for non-pecuniary damages.

The plaintiff, a former route supervisor for the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), sued for wrongful dismissal after being terminated for her alleged involvement in a group benefits fraud scheme involving a healthcare supplier.

The TTC counterclaimed for the amount of the fraudulent benefits paid.

The court found that the plaintiff knowingly participated in the fraud by submitting claims for unnecessary medical devices and splitting the reimbursement proceeds with the supplier.

The court held that the plaintiff's conduct constituted civil fraud and willful misconduct, justifying summary dismissal without notice or termination pay.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed, and the TTC's counterclaim for $15,815 was allowed.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for written submissions following the conclusion of evidence at trial.

The plaintiff's new counsel required trial transcripts, which would not be available until mid-December, as the trial had been split over a year due to a change of counsel.

The court granted the extension, finding it would be unfair to require the new counsel to prepare submissions without the transcripts.

The defendants in a motor vehicle accident tort action brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend orthopaedic and neurological defence medical examinations.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that the defendants were issue estopped because the Licence Appeal Tribunal had already found her to be catastrophically impaired under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The court rejected the issue estoppel argument, noting the different thresholds between SABS and tort actions and the 'firewall' between the two processes.

The court granted the orthopaedic examination as the plaintiff had put her physical condition in issue, but denied the neurological examination because the plaintiff had not claimed neurological impairment.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the minor plaintiff, who was injured in a bus accident at age four, to attend an examination for discovery.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing the examination would cause undue stress and that the minor lacked the capacity to understand the process.

The court weighed competing neuropsychological evidence and found the defendants' expert more persuasive, noting the minor was now 13 years old and competent to give evidence.

The court granted the motion, ordering the minor to attend the examination subject to protective conditions.