Dr. Anthony Feinstein

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a psychological condition resulting from a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer argued the applicant was malingering and that any impairment stemmed from a prior 2011 accident.

Despite evidence of the applicant deliberately frustrating the respondent's psychological assessments, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's neuropsychiatrist, finding a marked deterioration in the applicant's mental health.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a Class 4 marked impairment in three spheres and that, but for the 2014 accident exacerbating his pre-existing condition, he would not have sustained a catastrophic impairment.

A teenage plaintiff was catastrophically injured when she deliberately jumped from a moving school bus on the last day of Grade 8 as part of an informal tradition among graduating students.

The bus operator had received prior reports of students jumping from buses but failed to report these incidents to the school as required by its own handbook.

A jury found the defendant 75 per cent liable and the plaintiff 25 per cent contributorily negligent, awarding substantial damages.

The defendant appealed on grounds of improper jury charge regarding causation and contributory negligence, erroneous removal of the mitigation issue from the jury, and failure to deduct statutory accident benefits.

The Court of Appeal upheld the jury verdict on causation and contributory negligence, found the trial judge erred in removing mitigation from the jury but determined no miscarriage of justice resulted, and remitted the statutory accident benefits deduction issue to the Superior Court for determination.

Following a four-week trial where the plaintiff was awarded over $7 million for a traumatic brain injury sustained after jumping from a moving school bus, the court determined the costs payable by the defendant.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the plaintiffs' offer to settle, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court adjusted the 2005 Costs Grid for inflation to determine appropriate hourly rates for counsel.

In assessing disbursements, the court reduced several expert witness fees because the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient information regarding the experts' hourly rates and time spent.

The court also disallowed the premium for adverse costs insurance, finding it was not a compensable disbursement as it did not advance the litigation.

Total costs of $741,266.08 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs in two separate personal injury actions appealed interlocutory orders requiring them to undergo examinations by non-medical practitioners (a vocational assessor and a chiropractor).

The plaintiffs argued that section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act constitutes a complete code for such examinations, precluding orders for non-medical practitioners.

The Divisional Court held that section 105 does not completely occupy the field and that a Superior Court judge has inherent jurisdiction to order an examination by a non-medical practitioner where necessary to ensure trial fairness and justice.

Applying this test, the court dismissed the appeal in the Ziebenhaus action, finding the vocational assessment was necessary to meet the plaintiff's case.

However, the court allowed the appeal in the Jack action, finding the defendants failed to demonstrate that the functional abilities evaluation was necessary.

The applicant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's notices terminating income replacement benefits were not clear and unequivocal, meaning the limitation period had not expired.

The arbitrator determined the applicant was an employee rather than self-employed at the time of the accident.

The applicant was awarded 24-hour attendant care benefits retroactive to the accident date due to severe cognitive and behavioural impairments, despite a delay in submitting the formal application.

The arbitrator also awarded housekeeping benefits, nutritional counselling, and medical benefits for the purchase of medical marijuana, finding that marijuana was not an experimental treatment in the specific circumstances of the applicant's brain injury and chronic pain.

The applicant, who was confined to a wheelchair following a motor vehicle accident, sought interim attendant care, caregiving, and housekeeping benefits after the insurer terminated them at the 104-week mark.

The insurer relied on a surveillance video and medical assessments suggesting the applicant was malingering.

The arbitrator found the surveillance video to be of questionable probative value and tainted the insurer's medical evidence.

Applying the prima facie and urgency/necessity tests, the arbitrator granted the interim benefits, noting the extraordinary hardship on the applicant's family who were providing his care.

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.