Dylan James MacLeod Crosby

A motor vehicle accident occurred on April 25, 2015, on Scenic Road in Renfrew County involving two vehicles traveling in opposite directions, resulting in serious injury to a passenger.

Damages were resolved prior to trial.

The sole issue at trial was whether the driver of the oncoming vehicle (Prince) bore any liability for the accident.

The defendant driver (Vandenheuvel) admitted to crossing the centre line.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish any liability against Prince, dismissing the action against him.

The court found that Prince was driving in his own lane at a reasonable speed and took appropriate evasive action upon discovering the oncoming vehicle.

The registrant, a podiatrist, admitted to professional misconduct for failing to disclose a civil lawsuit against him on his annual College renewal forms.

He resigned from the College and undertook never to reapply or practise in any jurisdiction.

The Discipline Tribunal accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering a reprimand and $13,500 in costs, finding the proposed penalty was not contrary to the public interest.

The Applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Respondent denied the benefits, citing the Applicant's failure to comply with requests for information under section 33 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant substantially complied with the requests and that the Respondent had agreed to pay the benefits subject to calculating quantum.

The Tribunal awarded IRBs at a rate of $30.29 per week for a limited period, based on self-employment income reported to the CRA, and denied further benefits as the Applicant had returned to work.

The Tribunal also ordered interest and a 20% award under section 10 of Regulation 664 due to the Respondent's unreasonable delay in calculating and paying the benefits.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and a special award.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims for attendant care benefits because the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred by his son under section 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The claims for chiropractic and physiotherapy treatments were also dismissed for lack of evidence demonstrating their effectiveness and reasonableness.

However, the Tribunal granted the claim for a psychological assessment, finding it reasonable given the applicant's documented depressive symptoms.

The Tribunal also ordered a special award of $440 under Regulation 664, finding the respondent unreasonably maintained its denial of the psychological assessment even after its own assessor diagnosed the applicant with similar psychological conditions.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under the ambulatory mobility criterion following a motor vehicle accident.

While the Tribunal accepted that the accident caused a severe and permanent alteration to the structure and function of her right leg, it rejected the SCIM scoring methodologies presented by both parties' experts.

The applicant's experts improperly scored her using a wheeled walker without a swing gait, and the respondent's expert improperly substituted his hand for a cane.

Without valid SCIM scoring evidence, the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

Claims for a walker and a CAT assessment were also dismissed as the applicant made no submissions to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish that his injuries fell outside the MIG, as there was insufficient evidence of pre-existing conditions precluding recovery, psychological impairment, or chronic pain.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for Income Replacement Benefits (IRB), finding the applicant returned to work and failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments, including chronic pain, that warranted treatment beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly soft-tissue sprains and strains falling within the MIG.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's psychological evidence as it was based wholly on self-reporting without psychometric testing, and found insufficient evidence to establish chronic pain under the AMA Guides criteria.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Respondent denied the claims, arguing the Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that his claim for income replacement benefits (IRBs) was procedurally barred.

The Tribunal found the Applicant was barred from pursuing IRBs because he failed to provide timely notice of his intention to claim the benefit after previously withdrawing it, violating section 32(1) of the Schedule.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the Applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries, finding insufficient evidence of an accident-related chronic pain condition or psychological injury.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were denied as they exceeded the MIG funding limit, and the application was dismissed.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial management conference and a motion by the applicant to adjourn the trial.

The adjournment was necessitated by the respondent's failure to comply with financial disclosure obligations, which the court emphasized as essential for fair and efficient family law proceedings.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs, and the respondent failed to provide any responding submissions.

The court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $1500 plus HST, payable forthwith, finding the amount reasonable given the time spent and counsel's hourly rate.

The appellant mother appealed an interim order granting the respondent father decision-making authority to have their seven-year-old child vaccinated against COVID-19.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, applying the Court of Appeal's guidance in J.N. v. C.G. The court held that government recommendations regarding vaccination are admissible under the public document exception to the hearsay rule, and judicial notice may be taken of regulatory approval.

The motion judge correctly placed the onus on the mother to establish why the child should not be vaccinated, and did not err in allocating decision-making on an interim basis or in weighing the mother's views as the primary caregiver.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a mental and behavioural disorder (Criterion 8) following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant relied on the opinions of an ABI specialist and an orthopaedic surgeon, neither of whom performed formal catastrophic impairment testing.

The respondent presented surveillance evidence showing the applicant performing activities of daily living unassisted, contradicting her self-reports, and a psychiatric assessment concluding she suffered only moderate impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving a catastrophic impairment, noting inconsistencies in her reporting and the lack of qualified psychological or psychiatric assessments supporting her claim.

The application was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of Fraser J. The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, but restricted it solely to issues concerning COVID-19 vaccination.

The court recommended the appeal be heard alongside a related case and awarded costs of $2,500 to the moving party.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for the return of the parties' seven-year-old child to her primary care after the applicant father unilaterally withheld the child following a medical incident.

The father alleged the mother had substance abuse issues, but a Children's Aid Society investigation did not verify these concerns.

The court found that the father engaged in inappropriate self-help by altering the established status quo without a compelling reason.

The court ordered the child returned to the mother's primary care, restored the previous parenting schedule, and permitted the mother to return the child to his original school.

On a family law motion, the applicant sought immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home pending trial, while the respondent opposed sale and proposed retaining the home through an equalization set-off.

Applying the pre-trial sale framework under the Partition Act in light of unresolved Family Law Act issues, the court held that immediate sale should be refused where substantial rights, including equalization, pension treatment, and a potential spousal support claim, could still be affected at trial.

The court also considered the modest anticipated delay to trial, the respondent's undertaking to assume mortgage payments, and the limited practical advantage of listing during winter and COVID-19 restrictions.

The request for immediate sale was denied, the respondent was ordered to pay the mortgage pending trial, and use of the Family Wizard application was ordered on consent.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision barring him from proceeding with his application for statutory accident benefits due to his failure to attend insurer's examinations without a reasonable explanation.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Schedule, statutory notice requirements, and the necessity of the examinations.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding no significant error of law or fact, and noted the applicant was attempting to reargue his case.

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

The respondent denied certain treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he was removed from the MIG due to a neurological impairment (sciatica) and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support a concussion, sciatica, or a psychological impairment caused by the accident, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports over the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a minor injury, and because the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

The insurer denied two treatment plans on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and required the applicant to attend insurer's examinations under s. 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing that s. 44 does not permit an examination to determine the applicability of the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal held that the insurer is entitled to request an examination to determine if the MIG applies, and that the applicant's legal interpretation was incorrect.

Because the applicant failed to attend the examinations without a reasonable explanation, he was barred from proceeding with his application under s. 55 of the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her injuries were not predominantly minor or that she had a pre-existing condition preventing maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The application was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion for an order to sell the parties' jointly owned, unfinished matrimonial home prior to trial, for a Voice of the Child Report, and for leave to amend her answer to claim spousal support.

The court dismissed the request for the sale of the home due to uncertainty regarding its current equity and because it currently houses the parties' child, noting that a new motion could be brought once an updated appraisal is obtained.

The court granted the requests for a Voice of the Child Report and for leave to amend the answer to claim spousal support.

The applicant was successful on a motion regarding the interim parenting schedule for the parties' two children.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting that while the applicant's email offer did not meet the formal requirements of Rule 18, it was similar to the final result.

The court awarded the applicant costs fixed at $1,800 inclusive of disbursements and HST.