Dr. Abrams

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's long-term disability claim, arguing the plaintiff was not totally disabled prior to his termination.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that the conflicting medical evidence and questions regarding the plaintiff's credibility and the exact onset date of his disability created genuine issues requiring a trial.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 (55% whole person impairment) or Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders).

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, noting the applicant's pre-existing conditions and post-accident functioning, including international travel.

Claims for income replacement and attendant care benefits were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment and the benefits had expired past the 260-week mark.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The defendant dentist brought a motion for partial summary judgment in a dental malpractice action, arguing that claims relating to treatment before a specified date were statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs had originally commenced an action concerning later dental treatment but later amended the pleading to include earlier procedures and alleged failures to treat additional teeth.

The court held that the amendments asserted new causes of action rather than merely providing further particulars of the original claim.

Applying the discoverability principles under ss. 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act, the court found the plaintiffs knew or ought to have known of the potential negligence years earlier based on communications with subsequent dental specialists.

The claims relating to treatment before the specified date were therefore outside the limitation period.

During jury deliberations in a motor vehicle accident trial, the defendant brought a motion to determine whether the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statutory threshold under Bill 59 of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed the medical evidence and the plaintiff's testimony regarding her chronic pain, fatigue, and psychological impairments.

Applying the test from Meyer v. Bright, the court found that the plaintiff had sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

The defendant's motion was dismissed.