Dr. Benjamin Clark

The defendant brought a motion under section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to compel the plaintiff to attend a fourth defence medical examination, this time with a physiatrist.

The plaintiff had already attended examinations with an orthopaedic surgeon, a psychiatrist, and a neurologist.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant's orthopaedic surgeon had already provided extensive commentary and rebuttal to the plaintiff's physiatrist's report, and the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence explaining why a further examination by a physiatrist was necessary to ensure trial fairness.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was awarded $7,500 in general damages, the defendants brought a threshold motion.

The court first determined that the threshold motion was moot because the jury's award would be entirely eliminated by the statutory deductible under the Insurance Act, resulting in a net recovery of $0.

In the alternative, the court analyzed the medical evidence and found the plaintiff's credibility to be poor due to significant omissions in her medical history regarding pre-existing conditions like fibromyalgia and depression.

The court concluded the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she sustained a permanent, serious impairment of an important function caused by the accident.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant insurer appealed a jury verdict awarding the respondent damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing to grant a mistrial after the respondent's counsel made improper comments during his closing address, by giving an inadequate correcting instruction, by allowing an expert to testify beyond his report, and by refusing to order an assignment of statutory accident benefits.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's correcting instruction adequately addressed the improper comments, the evidentiary ruling was fair, and the appellant failed to prove the jury's future care award mirrored the respondent's uncertain accident benefits entitlement.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in August 2005.

Nine months later, she suffered severe disc herniations resulting in a cauda equina-like syndrome and a conversion disorder.

The insurer denied ongoing income replacement and attendant care benefits, arguing the disc herniations were not causally related to the accident.

The arbitrator found that the accident materially contributed to the disc herniations and the subsequent conversion disorder.

However, the arbitrator concluded the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, as her combined physical (21%) and mental/behavioural (28%) whole person impairment rating was 43%, falling short of the 55% threshold.

The applicant was awarded an ongoing income replacement benefit and attendant care benefits capped at $3,000 per month for the 104-week period following the accident.

The plaintiff suffered a cracked sacrum after a bed collapsed at the defendant hospital.

She later developed fibromyalgia, which the trial judge found was caused by the hospital fall despite an intervening car accident.

The trial judge awarded over $3 million in damages, including approximately $1.7 million for future care costs based on expert reports.

On appeal, the defendants challenged the liability finding and the future care costs.

The Court of Appeal upheld the liability finding, noting the trial judge properly applied foreseeability and the thin-skull rule.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding damages, reducing the future care costs award by $374,640.65 because several home maintenance items lacked evidentiary support.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including attendant care, non-earner benefits, and visitor's expenses.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's impairments were due to a pre-existing stroke and longstanding psychological issues.

The arbitrator found that the accident temporarily exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing physical and psychological conditions, entitling her to attendant care benefits for the first three months post-accident and for assistance with a pool therapy program.

The claims for non-earner benefits and visitor's expenses were dismissed.

Interest was awarded on the overdue attendant care benefits.

Each party was ordered to bear its own arbitration expenses.