Daniel MacDonald

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for massage therapy and chiropractic services, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's occupational therapist who conducted a comprehensive in-home assessment over the insurer's independent medical examination.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's preliminary motion to strike the respondent's late-filed written submissions, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant was awarded the disputed treatment plans and interest on overdue payments.

The applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that their injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and seeking income replacement benefits and a treatment plan.

The matter was scheduled for a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence by the deadline.

The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the applicant bore the onus of proof and provided no evidence, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate entitlement to the disputed benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services, psychological services, and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing the applicant had not incurred treatment for several years and the plans were submitted near the five-year limit.

The Tribunal found the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant had been confined to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) for over four years and had outstanding incurred treatment amounts.

The Tribunal deemed the expenses incurred under s. 3(8) of the Schedule because the respondent unreasonably withheld payment.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay a $2,500 award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 for behaving stubbornly and inflexibly in failing to adjust the claims in good faith after the applicant was removed from the MIG.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, specifically $1,700 for an occupational therapy assessment.

The insurer denied the benefit based on insurer examination reports suggesting no residual physical impairment and no functional limitations from psychological issues.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the assessment reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's functional limitations arising from her accident-related psychological impairment, noting her ongoing struggles with focus, concentration, and work duties.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding that the insurer's reliance on its medical assessors was not excessive, imprudent, or stubborn.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the assessment plus interest.

The applicant father sought the return of the child to London, Ontario, arguing the respondent mother had wrongfully relocated to Alberta and changed the child's habitual residence.

The respondent mother challenged jurisdiction, asserting Alberta was the proper forum, or alternatively, sought interim primary care in Alberta.

The court determined that Ontario retained jurisdiction, finding the child's habitual residence was London and the mother's relocation was unilateral and without consent.

Despite this, the court declined to order the child's immediate return to London, instead ordering an expedited trial and permitting the child to start school in Alberta, concluding that the mother had a cogent argument for success on the relocation issue at trial.

The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against the defendants after their newborn son developed kernicterus and suffered severe brain damage due to untreated hyperbilirubinemia.

The action against the physicians was settled, and the trial proceeded against the hospital and the nurse who cared for the infant overnight.

The court found that the nurse breached the standard of care by failing to report her observation of the infant's jaundice to a physician.

Applying a robust and pragmatic approach to causation, the court concluded that but for the nurse's negligence, a physician would have ordered a bilirubin test and initiated phototherapy in time to prevent the infant's injuries.

The hospital was held vicariously liable.

During a medical malpractice trial involving a newborn who developed kernicterus from untreated jaundice, the plaintiffs sought to qualify a registered nurse as an expert in perinatal nursing.

The defendants objected, arguing she lacked specific recent experience in tertiary hospital nurseries and was a 'roaming expert.' The court applied the Mohan and White Burgess frameworks, finding the proposed expert possessed the requisite specialized knowledge and experience in newborn care and jaundice assessment.

The court admitted the expert evidence, concluding its probative value outweighed any potential prejudice.

The court-appointed receiver of a corporation recommended that the company enter a plea agreement and plead guilty to a charge of mail fraud in the United States.

The motion judge approved the recommendation as being within the bounds of reasonableness.

The appellants appealed, arguing the receiver failed to properly assess the risk of conviction and the benefits of the plea agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the motion judge's conclusion that the receiver's assessment of the risk of conviction, cost savings, and reduced exposure to civil liability and restitution was reasonable.

The defendant sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion to stay or dismiss the action on the basis of jurisdiction and forum non conveniens.

The defendant argued that the motion judge failed to apply the correct principles regarding forum selection clauses as recently set out by the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge had correctly applied the principles, noting that the burden on the plaintiff to show strong cause only arises once the jurisdiction clause is found to be binding, which the motion judge did not find.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.