Dr. Berbrayer

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

The respondent insurer argued the applicant was barred from claiming income replacement benefits (IRBs) due to a material misrepresentation, alleging he failed to disclose he used his vehicle for Uber.

The Tribunal found the respondent failed to prove intentional misrepresentation.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for IRBs, finding he failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment, as financial records showed his income increased post-accident.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's claims for various treatment plans, preferring the respondent's independent medical examination over the applicant's orthopaedic assessment.

Claims for an award, interest, and the respondent's request for costs were all dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), medical benefits, and catastrophic assessment costs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to pre-104-week IRBs because she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment, noting she was on employment insurance for pre-existing conditions prior to the accident and had indicated she did not intend to return to her job.

The claim for post-104-week IRBs was also dismissed as the applicant provided no evidence of a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

Claims for outstanding treatment plan balances, including provider travel time and comprehensive file reviews, were denied as the applicant failed to establish they were reasonable and necessary or payable under the Schedule.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and several treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims.

The adjudicator found the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, relying on s. 44 assessments and the applicant's self-reports of resuming most pre-accident activities.

Claims for attendant care and treatment plans were denied for lack of evidence establishing they were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims for an award and interest.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a $10,000,000 settlement arising from a medical malpractice claim involving severe birth injuries to the minor plaintiff.

The minor plaintiff sustained permanent neurological injuries, including cerebral palsy, requiring 24-hour care for the rest of her life.

The court approved the settlement allocation for the minor, her parents, and OHIP, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant litigation risks regarding standard of care and causation.

The court also authorized the parents to use a portion of their settlement funds to immediately purchase a wheelchair-accessible home, while reserving its decision on the proposed $3,136,500 counsel fee pending input from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Co-operators General Insurance Company brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Annette Brooks, to attend a second independent medical examination with a physiatrist.

The plaintiff opposed, offering to withdraw her own physiatry report.

The court granted the motion, finding that the examination was warranted to ensure a fair determination of the nature and extent of the plaintiff's injuries, despite the plaintiff's offer and the late stage of litigation, as the plaintiff's physiatry report was relied upon by another expert and the proposed examination was not duplicative.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a documented pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's multi-disciplinary independent medical examinations, which concluded the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor and did not cause significant functional impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict awarding $55,000 in damages following a motor vehicle accident, arguing the assessment was inconsistent, unreasonable, and out of proportion to the injuries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no obvious inconsistency in the jury's findings.

The court held that the verdict was reasonable, as the jury was entitled to assess the plaintiff's credibility and prefer the evidence of the respondent's medical expert over the appellants' expert.

The defendants brought a motion for a declaration that the plaintiff's injuries from an automobile accident did not meet the verbal threshold under the Insurance Act, which would bar recovery for non-pecuniary general damages and healthcare expenses.

The court found that the plaintiff, Balbir Mann, failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a permanent, serious impairment of an important bodily function.

The plaintiff's credibility as a historian was significantly undermined by inconsistencies in his testimony, reports to doctors, and surveillance video footage.

Consequently, the expert opinions based on his unreliable self-reports were also deemed unreliable.

The court allowed the defendants' motion, dismissing the plaintiff's action for non-pecuniary general damages and healthcare expenses.

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the applicant had exhausted the $3,500 limit.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain syndrome, removing her from the MIG.

The adjudicator found the applicant's high level of activity, including yoga, snowshoeing, and active holidays, was inconsistent with a diagnosis of chronic pain.

The adjudicator concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed the application.

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

The insurer denied payment, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 treatment limit under the Minor Injury Guideline, or alternatively, that the injuries were caused by a subsequent accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from a concussion with post-concussive symptoms caused by the first accident, which is not a predominantly minor injury.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for a driving rehabilitation assessment and an occupational therapy assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments but denied an award for unreasonable denial, as the insurer's belief regarding the cause of the injuries was reasonable.

The applicant sought interest on overdue income replacement benefits (IRBs), a rehabilitation benefit for an orthopedic mattress, and a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to interest on the IRBs because the respondent conceded the benefits were payable, making them overdue under s. 51 of the Schedule.

The claim for the orthopedic mattress was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary, with both parties' physiatrists indicating it would not significantly assist with pain management.

The claims for costs and a special award were also dismissed as there was no evidence of bad faith or unreasonable delay by the respondent.

The appellant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sued for damages.

At trial, the jury awarded $25,000 in general damages and $5,000 for future health care, but the trial judge granted the respondents' threshold motion under the Insurance Act, reducing the damages to zero.

The appellant appealed the threshold ruling, the trial judge's refusal to put the loss of income claim to the jury, and the jury charge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the threshold analysis, agreeing there was insufficient evidence to support a loss of income claim, and concluding the jury charge was appropriate.

The defendant, State Farm, brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for chiropractic treatments and a declaration of entitlement to future medical rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The court found the case appropriate for summary judgment, noting the small amount in question ($4,090) and the availability of expert evidence.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the proposed chiropractic treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, as expert opinions emphasized active, self-directed rehabilitation over passive treatments.

The motion was allowed, and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The plaintiff sought damages after a fall from an apartment building fire escape, alleging breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act and the Fire Code due to accumulated snow and ice.

The court held that fire escapes must be kept safe for emergency use and that the occupier’s duty was not negated merely because tenants used the area for smoking, but found the defendants had a reasonable winter maintenance system in place.

The plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that ice on the fire escape caused the fall, particularly given credibility problems, inconsistent accounts of the accident, and photographic and witness evidence inconsistent with the alleged icy condition.

The action was dismissed.

The court nevertheless assessed hypothetical damages totalling substantial non-pecuniary, loss of competitive advantage, future care, and OHIP subrogated amounts.

Following a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident where liability had been admitted, the plaintiff recovered damages of $280,525.60.

The parties disputed entitlement to costs in light of competing offers to settle under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that the defendant’s offer to settle for $375,000 complied with Rule 49 and triggered the usual cost consequences because the plaintiff obtained a judgment lower than the offer.

The plaintiff was therefore entitled to partial indemnity costs only up to the date of the defendant’s offer, while the defendant was entitled to partial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court reduced both parties’ claimed fees and disbursements as excessive and fixed costs at equivalent amounts, resulting in a full set‑off.