David José

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The respondent insurer requested that the applicant attend section 44 multidisciplinary examinations.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing the requests were unreasonable and untimely.

The Tribunal applied the six-factor test for reasonableness and found the insurer's requests were reasonable and timely, as they were made after the two-year anniversary of the accident to assess specific criteria.

The Tribunal ordered that the applicant is barred from proceeding with his application until he attends the requested physiatry, psychology, and otolaryngology examinations, and directed the insurer to schedule them within 35 days.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to attendant care benefits and the costs of chronic pain and orthopaedic assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to further attendant care benefits beyond what the respondent had already paid, as the services were no longer reasonable or necessary after January 15, 2015.

The Tribunal approved the chronic pain assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary given the applicant's ongoing pain and psychological injuries.

However, the orthopaedic assessment was denied as unnecessary, since the applicant's physical injuries were already well-documented and the chronic pain assessment would sufficiently address the ongoing issues.

The applicants, three police officers charged with sexual assault, sought to vary a sealing order to prohibit publication of information from an Information to Obtain (ITO) DNA warrants, arguing it was necessary to preserve trial fairness and prevent witness tainting and stigmatization.

The Crown supported the ban for consistency with a prior publication ban on conflict motion materials.

The media respondents opposed the ban.

The court dismissed the application, finding the applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence to meet the Dagenais/Mentuck test for a publication ban, which requires demonstrating a serious risk to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by alternative measures, and that the salutary effects outweigh the deleterious effects on freedom of expression and public right to know.

The court emphasized the presumptive openness of warrant materials and the public interest in the investigation of police officers.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, medical, housekeeping, and assessment costs.

The insurer terminated benefits based on an assessment by a general practitioner and a Disability DAC report.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment as a sewing machine operator for the first 104 weeks, relying on the chronic pain diagnosis of her treating physiatrist and psychologist.

However, the applicant failed to meet the stricter "complete inability" test for post-104 week benefits.

The arbitrator awarded the claimed medical, housekeeping, and assessment expenses.

Furthermore, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay a $10,000 special award under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act, finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by relying on flawed assessments, ignoring substantial medical evidence, and improperly requesting a supplementary report from a neutral DAC assessor.

The applicant, a taxi driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, medical, and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer denied the benefits and the matter proceeded to arbitration.

The applicant failed to attend the pre-hearing and the hearing proceeded in writing.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant was substantially disabled for a period, he was not entitled to income replacement benefits because he failed to provide the insurer with reasonable information to calculate the quantum, such as tax returns and taxi run sheets.

The claims for medical and housekeeping benefits were also dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until May 8, 1994.

He sought reinstatement of benefits until November 1, 1994, claiming he was substantially unable to perform his essential tasks as a ditch digger due to a knee injury.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had largely recovered by January 1994 and failed to prove he was substantially unable to perform his essential tasks during the disputed period.

The claims for weekly income benefits and a special award were dismissed.

The insurer's claim for repayment of post-accident income was also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

The applicant commenced a court action against the insurer and subsequently applied for arbitration at the Ontario Insurance Commission.

The insurer brought a preliminary issue hearing to dismiss the arbitration due to the concurrent court action.

The arbitrator dismissed the arbitration application, finding that proceeding in two concurrent forums amounts to an abuse of process and a multiplicity of proceedings.

Costs of $250 were awarded to the insurer.