Earl J. Murtha

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological evidence was unpersuasive as it contradicted the clinical notes of his family doctor, and that his physical injuries were soft tissue in nature, resolving within expected timeframes.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and remained within the MIG.

All claims for benefits, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to various attendant care benefits and treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal evaluated the applicant's impairments under Criterion 7 (Whole Person Impairment) and Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders).

The Tribunal rejected several of the applicant's physical impairment ratings due to a lack of causal evidence and methodological flaws, concluding the applicant did not meet the 55% WPI threshold.

Under Criterion 8, the Tribunal found the applicant had only mild impairments in activities of daily living and social functioning, failing to meet the threshold of three marked or one extreme impairment.

As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and had exhausted his non-CAT limits, the claims for attendant care and treatment plans were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG, claiming he sustained a concussion.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence, primarily from chiropractors, did not establish a concussion diagnosis.

Relying on the clinical notes of the applicant's family physician and an insurer's examination report, the Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained only minor injuries.

As the applicant was subject to the MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans and assessments were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The trial concerned a third-party claim by the defendant, Cristy Mitton, against the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) and its contractor, Carillion Canada Inc., alleging negligent winter maintenance of Highway 41.

Mitton had previously settled the main action with the plaintiff, Ronald Busch, admitting 1% liability.

The court found that Highway 41 was in a state of non-repair due to being partially snow-packed, and this condition caused Mitton to lose control.

However, the MTO successfully discharged its onus by proving its winter maintenance operations were reasonable, including the decision to use salt despite low temperatures, as it was a judgment call aimed at achieving bare pavement.

The court dismissed the third-party claim, finding no liability on the MTO.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological impairment, removing him from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant's claim for an income replacement benefit was dismissed due to a lack of compelling evidence explaining his inability to work.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for psychological services, a psychological assessment, and a neurological assessment, but denied plans for chiropractic services.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits and raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding to a hearing because he failed to attend a scheduled insurer's examination under section 44 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the notice of examination was compliant with the Schedule and that the examination was reasonably necessary.

As a result, the applicant was barred from proceeding with his application under section 55 of the Schedule.

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to a concussion, pre-existing conditions, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a concussion or pre-existing conditions precluding recovery.

Relying on the respondent's section 44 psychological assessment over the applicant's psychological report, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered only minor injuries.

The application for the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The appellant, Ontario Place Corporation, appealed a trial judge's decision finding them liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for injuries sustained by the respondent, Patrick Lyng, on their premises.

The trial judge found Ontario Place 75% liable and the respondent 25% contributorily negligent for a knee injury sustained after jumping down a wet, slippery hill when a pedestrian bridge was closed.

The appeal raised issues regarding the theory of liability, causation, breach of duty under the Act, contributory negligence, and the award for loss of competitive advantage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's findings on all grounds, including the "train of events" causation and the damages award.

The applicant was a passenger in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and funding for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting inconsistencies between her self-reported psychological symptoms and her family doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant could still engage in most of her pre-accident activities of daily living, albeit at a slower pace.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental or behavioural disorder) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment evaluation was not conducted by a physician as required by the Schedule, as the physicians merely rubber-stamped the findings of a neuropsychologist and an occupational therapist.

Because a neuropsychologist is precluded from determining catastrophic impairment outside of Criterion 7, the Tribunal gave no weight to the medical evidence and dismissed the catastrophic impairment claim.

However, the Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay up to $2,000 each for the neuropsychological and occupational therapy assessments, as they were reasonable and necessary to explore the applicant's impairments.

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

The respondent determined the injuries were minor and subject to the $3,500 limit under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he suffered from a concussion, chronic pain, and a psychological impairment, which fall outside the MIG.

The Tribunal excluded a late-filed psychological assessment report due to prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support the applicant's claims of concussion, chronic pain, or psychological impairment.

Consequently, the injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and the claims for treatment plans and assessments beyond the MIG limit, as well as interest, were dismissed.

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

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

The applicant claimed her injuries were outside the MIG due to chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish chronic pain under the AMA Guides criteria, noting her lack of engagement with treatment and failure to follow medical recommendations.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limits.

The applicant was also found not entitled to income replacement benefits as she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

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

The respondent insurer denied treatment plans for chiropractic services, orthotics, and psychological assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that her chronic pain resulted in a functional impairment or that she suffered from a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, which had already been exhausted.

The application for benefits, interest, and an award was dismissed.

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

The central issue was whether the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions or psychological injuries sustained in the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's section 44 psychological examination over the applicant's self-reported pre-screening, concluding that the applicant did not suffer a psychological injury as a result of the accident.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, and failed to provide copies of the impugned treatment plans, the claims for medical benefits, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The plaintiff, Patrick Lyng, sued Ontario Place Corporation under the Occupiers' Liability Act for a serious knee injury sustained after a concert.

The injury occurred when he fell down a wet, grassy hill after a pedestrian bridge, the shortest route to the Go Station, was closed.

The court found Ontario Place Corporation 75% liable for failing to take reasonable care by not providing adequate warnings or barriers for the known hazardous hill, especially given the wet conditions and the presence of intoxicated patrons.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for jumping down the hill while intoxicated and wearing flip-flops.

The court awarded damages for non-pecuniary loss, past income loss, and future loss of competitive advantage, totaling $131,525.41 before prejudgment interest, reduced by the plaintiff's contributory negligence.

The appellant, a homeowner, sought indemnification under her property insurance policy for damage to her log house caused by a contractor's restoration work.

The trial judge found coverage existed but dismissed her claim due to late notice of the loss, denying relief from forfeiture.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal but varied the costs awards, finding the trial judge had expanded the scope of issues beyond those directed by the appellate court in its prior decision, thereby increasing the appellant's reasonable cost expectations.

The plaintiff sued numerous lawyers, insurers, medical assessors, experts, and court reporting parties arising from the handling of underlying motor vehicle accident tort and accident benefits litigation.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and held that the claims were either statute-barred, defeated by the absence of any duty of care, barred by expert witness immunity, unsupported by admissible evidence, or lacking any proof of compensable damage.

Claims against former counsel failed for limitation and lack of expert support and causation; claims against opposing counsel and insurers failed because no duty was owed to an adverse party; claims against expert assessors failed because their litigation-related reports were immune from suit.

Allegations that discovery transcripts had been doctored were unsupported and did not disclose any triable issue.

Summary judgment was granted to all defendants and the action was dismissed.

The appellants sought leave to amend their statement of defence to plead a limitations defence at a very late stage of litigation, after failing to comply with a consent order deadline.

The motion judge dismissed the motion, finding the appellants had not demonstrated it was in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The appellants appealed, arguing the motion judge erred in characterizing the order as a consent order, in finding inadequate explanation for delay, and in considering prejudice beyond the two-month delay.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding the motion judge properly applied the test and that the appellants failed to provide a compelling explanation for their non-compliance with the consent order.

The defendants, former lawyers of the plaintiff, brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of defence in a negligence action.

The plaintiff was seriously injured in a 2000 motor vehicle accident, and her tort claim was dismissed in 2009 due to a missed limitation period.

She then sued her former lawyers for negligence.

The defendants sought to add allegations regarding the standard of care at the time the tort claim was issued (2002) and a limitation defence against the plaintiff's current negligence claim.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing abuse of process, res judicata, collateral attack, and non-compensable prejudice due to the potential loss of a claim against her current lawyers.

The court granted leave for all proposed amendments, finding them legally tenable and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated non-compensable prejudice.

The court also clarified that leave to bring the motion under Rule 48.04 was not required as the defendants had not set the action down for trial.