Dr. Alex Weinberger

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).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's chronic pain and psychological issues pre-dated the accident and were not substantially worsened by it.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's physiatry assessment over the applicant's occupational therapy assessment, noting methodological flaws in the latter.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, and denied the claim for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and a pre-existing psychological condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to establish chronic pain with a functional limitation.

Furthermore, the Tribunal relied on a section 44 psychological assessment to conclude that the applicant's pre-existing psychological condition did not prevent her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2012 final order to allow for equal, week-about parenting time for the parties' 14-year-old child.

The child expressed a consistent preference for a shared parenting arrangement to an assessor.

However, the court found significant ongoing conflict between the parents and instances where the applicant undermined the respondent's decision-making authority and parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court dismissed the motion to change the parenting schedule, finding the current arrangement primarily in the respondent's care remained in the child's best interests.

Child support was ordered on a set-off basis.

In a high-conflict family law trial, the mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the parties' two young children to Montreal to take over her family's business.

The father sought joint custody and opposed the move.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding that the parties' poor communication and high conflict precluded joint custody, and permitted the move to Montreal as being in the children's best interests.

The father was granted a graduated access schedule that increased his parenting time to alternate weekends with overnights.

The court also ordered ongoing child support and a $10,000 lump sum for retroactive spousal support, but dismissed the mother's claims for retroactive section 7 expenses and a $60,000 business contribution due to insufficient evidence.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an order to compel the applicant mother to cooperate with an update to a Custody/Access Assessment and to share the cost of the update.

The respondent also sought an order requiring the applicant to sign consents for the release of the children's medical and educational records.

The court ordered the applicant to cooperate with the update to ensure the trial could proceed as scheduled, but directed the respondent to pay the cost of the update.

The court also ordered the applicant to execute the requested consents.

The Father brought a motion to change a divorce order, seeking sole custody and a variation of child support, citing the Mother's persistent unfounded allegations of abuse, non-compliance with court orders, and interference with the children's education and health.

The Mother sought to maintain joint custody or obtain sole custody for herself.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the deleterious effects of parental conflict on the children, the Mother's persistent unfounded allegations, and her lack of insight into the children's needs.

Sole custody and primary residence were granted to the Father, with weekly access to the Mother.

The applicant father sought to vary a 2009 custody and access order to a joint custody 3-4-4-3 shared parenting schedule.

The respondent mother sought to maintain the status quo where the child resided primarily with her and the father had access every second weekend.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the mother's relocation and new family dynamics.

However, applying the best interests of the child test, the court dismissed the father's request for shared custody, noting the high conflict between the parents, the child's strong bond with the mother, and the significant travel time required for the child to attend school from the father's residence.

The status quo was maintained with minor adjustments to access.