Barry Brown

The applicant, a minor, sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments arising from a motor vehicle accident involving her father and brothers.

The applicant was not in the vehicle at the time of the accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant was not involved in an accident and was not an 'insured person' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant was not involved in the accident, she qualified as an 'insured person' because she was a dependent who suffered psychological injuries as a result of the physical injuries sustained by her father in the accident.

Applying the 'but for' test for causation, the Tribunal rejected the respondent's argument that the psychological injuries were caused by intervening post-accident family dynamics, noting the respondent's own expert diagnosed the applicant with an accident-related anxiety disorder.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay $2,200 for a psychological assessment but denied the claim for lost educational expenses as they were not incurred prior to the accident.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision to change a final custody order that had granted him sole custody of his two sons and required them to attend a reunification program.

The younger son had repeatedly run away and refused to live with the appellant or attend the program.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the son's extreme resistance constituted a material change in circumstances and that it was no longer in his best interests to enforce the custody order.

The court also dismissed the son's cross-appeal seeking a declaration that he had withdrawn from parental control, finding the motion judge's order that no person had custody or access rights over him was sufficient.

The mother and the Chief of Police brought motions to change a final custody order that granted the father sole custody of two teenage sons and required police enforcement to compel the sons to attend a reunification program.

The sons, aged 16 and 18, had consistently refused contact with the father and actively evaded police enforcement.

The court found a material change in circumstances, removed the police enforcement clause, and rescinded the custody order entirely, concluding that it was impossible to enforce and no longer in the children's best interests.

No new custody order was made, leaving the sons to determine their own residential and contact arrangements.

The children and the Chief of Police were represented by separate counsel on the motions.

The applicant mother sought sole custody, child support, and spousal support following the breakdown of the parties' marriage.

The respondent father, who resides in Dubai, sought sole or joint custody and opposed the support claims.

The court found the father to be controlling, abusive, and a flight risk, noting his refusal to grant a Muslim 'Talaq' divorce and his threats to take the child to Pakistan.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, ordered graduated and restricted access for the father conditional on surrendering his passports, and imputed a grossed-up income of $239,200 to the father for child support purposes.

The mother's claim for spousal support was dismissed due to the short marriage and her stable income.

The father brought a motion to stay an interim order that allowed the mother to relocate with their two children to Sweden pending a trial scheduled for December.

The court considered the tests for both a stay and leave to appeal, emphasizing that the best interests of the children and continuity of care were paramount.

Finding no grave prejudice or irreparable harm to the father, and noting the assessor's recommendation that the children remain in the mother's primary care, the court dismissed the motion for a stay and awarded costs to the mother.

The applicant, a visiting homemaker, was struck by a motor vehicle and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them, claiming she could return to work.

The applicant sought reinstatement of benefits, arguing she suffered from benign paroxysmal positional vertigo and soft tissue injuries preventing her from working.

The arbitrator found that while the soft tissue injuries did not prevent her from working, the vertigo caused a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits but denied the cost of a multidisciplinary assessment.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents in 1995 and sought statutory accident benefits, including caregiver benefits, housekeeping expenses, and medical/rehabilitation costs.

The insurer terminated caregiver benefits in 1996 based on surveillance and medical assessments suggesting the applicant was exaggerating her symptoms.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for ongoing caregiver benefits, finding the applicant's evidence unreliable and her limitations overstated.

However, the arbitrator partially granted the claims for housekeeping expenses, recognizing some ongoing impairment, and ordered the insurer to pay outstanding medical, chiropractic, and transportation expenses.