Dr. Azadian

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his personal injury action, which was found to be statute-barred due to the two-year limitation period.

The motion judge concluded that the appellant's injuries were discoverable well within the limitation period.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the motion judge's application of discoverability principles under the Limitations Act and the threshold for serious and permanent impairment under the Insurance Act.

The Court clarified that formal medical opinions required for a threshold motion are not necessary to trigger the limitation period.

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

In a supplementary decision following a reconsideration order, the adjudicator redetermined whether the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and whether she was entitled to income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's chronic pain did not affect her functionality, relying on surveillance evidence, Ontario Works applications indicating no work restrictions, and the respondent's medical assessments.

The evidence of the applicant's occupational therapist was rejected as unreliable.

Consequently, the adjudicator concluded the injuries fell within the MIG and dismissed the claims for IRBs, medical benefits, and interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits beyond the $3,500 limit prescribed by the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that his injuries fell outside the MIG due to psychological impairments, chronic pain, and a pre-existing condition.

The adjudicator found the applicant's medical evidence inconsistent, particularly noting the lack of psychological complaints or referrals in his family physician's clinical notes.

The adjudicator concluded that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and was subject to the MIG limit.

The application for further benefits was dismissed, and neither party was awarded costs.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident in October 2014.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing that any inability to live a normal life was caused by a prior accident in September 2013.

The Tribunal applied the Heath framework and found that the applicant's lifestyle changes were attributable to the 2013 accident, as supported by independent medical examinations and the applicant's own examination under oath.

The application for a non-earner benefit was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, which the insurer denied.

The central issue was whether the applicant's injuries met the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, finding that the applicant suffered a marked psychological impairment and significant physical impairments, rendering her catastrophically impaired.

The arbitrator awarded various medical benefits, attendant care benefits, housekeeping and home maintenance benefits, and the costs of several assessments.

Claims for a driver desensitization assessment, a worksite assessment, and a special award were dismissed.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments.