Dr. Adrian Hanick

The defendant appealed a jury verdict in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.

At trial, the judge excluded defence video surveillance evidence intended for impeachment, failed to provide a correcting instruction after the plaintiffs' counsel made an inflammatory closing address, and failed to fairly review the defence's medical evidence of malingering in the jury charge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge applied the wrong legal test for admitting impeachment evidence under Rule 30.09 and erred in his handling of the closing address and jury charge.

The cumulative effect of these errors resulted in a miscarriage of justice, necessitating a new trial.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed ongoing income replacement benefits.

The Insurer argued his condition was not caused by the accident and he was not motivated to return to work.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant suffered continuous depression, reduced cognitive skills, and chronic pain as a result of the accident.

Due to these cognitive and physical disabilities, the Applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his job as a welder.

The Arbitrator ordered the Insurer to pay ongoing income replacement benefits and the expenses of the arbitration.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated his income replacement benefits, arguing he was not substantially disabled from his employment as a wallpaper hanger.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment due to chronic pain, severe headaches, and psychological difficulties resulting from the accident.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay ongoing income replacement benefits, certain supplementary medical expenses, and a special award of $2,500 for unreasonably terminating benefits without a proper assessment.