Dr. Ana Bodnar

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

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

The applicant sought removal from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain and psychological injury.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of chronic pain with functional impairment and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The applicant sought medical benefits and Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he did not meet the test for IRBs.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered predominantly minor physical injuries and failed to prove a chronic pain condition or psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the treatment plans were not payable.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for IRBs, finding insufficient objective evidence that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that her post-accident diagnosis of dural AV fistula, alleged psychological condition, or pre-existing conditions warranted removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the applicant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit, as she had resumed most of her normal activities of daily living and did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for chiropractic and physiotherapy treatments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement from her soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's self-reports of chronic pain were not compelling and that the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed and no benefits or interest were awarded.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found the applicant was entitled to medical benefits for social work counselling and physiotherapy, preferring the evidence of the applicant's assessors and the respondent's own psychological assessor over the respondent's paper-review orthopaedic assessment.

The adjudicator noted the applicant suffered from accident-related psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The claim for the cost of an OCF-3 was denied as it was not requested by the insurer and provided no new medical information.

The respondent's request for costs under Rule 19.1, alleging the applicant's reply was inflammatory, was dismissed as the conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant, who was a minor at the time of the motor vehicle accident, sought a non-earner benefit and medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The respondent argued the claim for the non-earner benefit was statute-barred under the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal held that the limitation period was suspended under s. 6 of the Limitations Act because the applicant was a minor and her mother's assistance in applying for benefits did not make her a litigation guardian.

However, on the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies in her self-reporting and preferring the respondent's insurer examinations.

The Tribunal also concluded the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG, as there was insufficient evidence of psychological impairment or chronic pain to warrant removal.

All claims for benefits and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and the cost of an orthopaedic assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits based on insurer examinations and surveillance video, arguing the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment as a truck driver assistant and that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical and psychological impairments, combined with the heavy physical demands of his pre-accident employment, entitled him to IRBs.

The Tribunal also found the orthopaedic assessment was reasonable and necessary as the applicant's injuries fell outside the MIG.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the insurer.

The insurer denied income replacement benefits and took the position that the applicant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), denying various treatment plans and assessments.

The Arbitrator found the applicant credible and preferred the evidence of his treating practitioners and assessors over the insurer's assessors, whose reports were found to be conclusory or incomplete.

The Arbitrator concluded the applicant suffered from chronic pain and driver anxiety, removing him from the MIG.

The applicant was awarded income replacement benefits, the disputed medical and assessment costs, and interest.

The parents and two First Nations appealed a trial decision making two First Nations children Crown wards with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The appellants argued the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors of fact, erred in finding Crown wardship was the least restrictive alternative, and that the mother received ineffective assistance of counsel.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence, which included significant parenting deficits, developmental delays that improved in care, and the need for stability.

The court also admitted fresh evidence but concluded it did not warrant a new trial or a change to the order, affirming that Crown wardship with no access remained in the children's best interests.

The appellant father appealed an order under the Hague Convention requiring the return of his 13-year-old daughter to Mexico.

The child had previously been granted Convention refugee status in Canada based on abuse by the respondent mother.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding no conflict between the Hague Convention and the principle of non-refoulement in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The court held that a refugee child's s. 7 Charter rights are engaged in a Hague application, requiring a risk assessment and procedural fairness, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.

A new hearing was ordered.