Dr. Brown

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for post-104 week income replacement benefits, a chronic pain assessment, and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by admitting late-served surveillance evidence and erred in law and fact in its evaluation of the medical evidence and the legal test for benefits.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal properly weighed the prejudice of the late evidence, applied the correct legal tests, and reasonably preferred the respondent's independent medical examinations over the applicant's evidence.

The reconsideration request was deemed an improper attempt to re-litigate the initial hearing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant alleged the adjudicator committed a material breach of procedural fairness by limiting oral submissions and excluding an Aide Memoire, and made errors of law and fact in assessing her activities of daily living, communication abilities, and expert evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the parties were granted ample time for submissions.

The Tribunal also held that the alleged factual errors would not have changed the outcome and that the applicant was improperly attempting to re-litigate the weighing of evidence.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a LAT decision that awarded the applicant income replacement benefits (IRBs) and approved treatment plans for a functional abilities examination, chronic pain assessment, and psychological services.

The respondent argued the adjudicator erred in law and fact, including failing to address causation for the applicant's physical impairments.

The adjudicator granted the reconsideration in part, acknowledging the failure to address physical causation in the original decision.

However, upon reviewing the medical evidence, the adjudicator found the accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's ongoing neck pain.

The original decision was confirmed in its entirety, and the remaining grounds for reconsideration were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding with one invoice due to failing to provide requested supervision notes under s. 46.2 of the Schedule.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal awarded IRBs for the disputed period, finding the accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's major depressive episode which rendered her substantially unable to perform her employment tasks.

The Tribunal also partially approved treatment plans for a functional abilities evaluation, a chronic pain assessment, and psychological services, but denied others including a neurological assessment and a chronic pain program.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to amend her statement of claim to limit damages to $200,000 and to strike the jury notice, thereby transferring the action to the Simplified Procedure track under Rule 76.

The defendants opposed, citing delay and potential prejudice.

The court granted leave, finding a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances due to the increased monetary threshold for Simplified Procedure and the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on jury trials.

The court further found that striking the jury notice and proceeding under Simplified Procedure was in the best interests of justice, promoting proportionality, accessibility, and expeditious resolution, without causing functional disadvantage to the defendants.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming $2,486.00 for a physiatry assessment and an award for unreasonably withheld payments.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the assessment was reasonable and necessary, preferring the insurer's medical examination report which found normal neurological findings and functional range of motion.

The applicant's expert evidence on chronic pain was rejected due to reliance on subjective reporting without objective validity testing.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was also dismissed, as the insurer reasonably relied on its assessors' reports in denying the benefit.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer classified the injuries as minor and denied a chiropractic treatment plan of $1,096.00 once the $3,500.00 funding limit was exhausted.

The applicant argued his pre-existing multiple sclerosis and back pain, along with a concussion and adjustment disorder, warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence linking the psychological disorder or concussion to the accident, and no evidence that the accident worsened his pre-existing conditions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming the cost of an OCF-3 disability certificate and a chronic pain treatment program.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the OCF-3 was not requested and the chronic pain program was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found the OCF-3 was payable as it provided material medical evidence that led to the reinstatement of the applicant's non-earner benefit.

The Tribunal also approved the chronic pain treatment plan, preferring the evidence of the applicant's chronic pain specialist over the respondent's general practitioner, and finding the applicant met the criteria for chronic pain syndrome.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant father brought a motion for contempt and summary judgment against the respondent mother for failing to provide financial disclosure and to resolve child support and section 7 expenses.

The court dismissed the contempt motion, finding the mother's failure to comply was not intentional but rather a result of severe mental health issues.

The court granted partial summary judgment, fixing the section 7 expenses and child support overpayment, but ordered a mini-trial to determine the imputation of the mother's income and life insurance designation, noting the need to accommodate the self-represented mother's procedural deficiencies.

This costs endorsement follows a four-week jury trial concerning a motor vehicle accident, where the plaintiff's jury awards for general damages and past loss of income were reduced to zero due to the statutory deductible and collateral accident benefits under the Insurance Act.

The defendant, deemed the successful party, sought substantial indemnity costs totaling over $400,000.

The plaintiff argued for a modest award, citing the defendant's late admission of liability and the jury's initial verdict.

The court, exercising its broad discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff.

However, it also rejected a "modest" award, concluding that partial indemnity was appropriate.

The court meticulously adjusted the defendant's claimed fees and disbursements, disallowing certain items like surveillance costs and excessive expert fees, ultimately awarding the defendant $131,980.35 in partial indemnity costs.

The court also dismissed the defendant's request for production of the plaintiff's adverse costs insurance policy, affirming its irrelevance and that Rule 30.02 does not apply when the law firm, not a party, is the policyholder.

Aviva requested a reconsideration of a LAT decision which found that the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline due to chronic pain.

Aviva argued the adjudicator erred in law and breached procedural fairness by failing to consider whether the chronic pain was merely a sequelae of minor injuries.

The Vice-Chair extended the time to file the reconsideration request by one day.

On the merits, the Vice-Chair found no reviewable error, noting that chronic pain does not fall within the minor injury framework and is not a clinically associated sequelae to a minor injury.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought funding for a chronic pain treatment program.

The respondent insurer partially approved the plan for psychological treatment but denied the physical therapy and chronic pain components, relying on an insurer's examination.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant credible and preferred the evidence of his treating assessors, who diagnosed chronic pain syndrome caused by the accident.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the remaining cost of the treatment plan, excluding transportation expenses, plus interest on overdue payments.

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

The insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries, specifically chronic pain in his right wrist and shoulder, removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved the treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment and partially approved a Comprehensive Rehabilitation Programme, deducting costs for psychological treatments as the pain was entirely physical.

A treatment plan for chiropractic services was denied as a duplication of services.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found the applicant was entitled to $1,070 for assistive devices, as they were reasonable and necessary to treat accident-related pain, despite the applicant's concurrent pregnancy.

Claims for a cast and crutches were dismissed as abandoned, and a claim for chiropractic services was dismissed because the applicant had several unexhausted approved treatment plans for similar physical therapies.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payment for the assistive devices.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent insurer denied the claim, alleging the collision was staged and that the applicant made a material misrepresentation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence was logically inconsistent and contradicted by the respondent's accident reconstruction expert, who concluded the collision could not have occurred as the applicant described.

The Tribunal held that a staged collision does not meet the definition of an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule, as it offends the public policy against profiting from intentional acts codified in s. 118 of the Insurance Act.

The Tribunal concluded the collision was staged, the applicant was not in an accident, and the respondent was entitled to terminate benefits under s. 53 of the Schedule due to the applicant's wilful material misrepresentation.

The appellant spa owner appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding her liable for negligence after the respondent suffered severe facial infections from receiving electrolysis shortly after dermal filler injections.

The respondent cross-appealed the $6,000 damages award, seeking $25,000.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions on causation and negligence.

The cross-appeal on damages was also dismissed, as the award was not wholly erroneous, but the judgment was varied to include $1,400 in pre-judgment interest.

The appellant appealed a decision upholding the respondent bank's refusal to approve a rehabilitation plan.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the bank had the discretion to refuse approval for expenses over $5,000 and that its refusal was reasonable based on the medical opinion evidence.

The court also held that the application judge's reasons were adequate.

The appellant employer appealed a jury award of $468,969.18, including $300,000 in general damages, for sexual assaults committed against the respondent employee.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by failing to instruct the jury to consider whether other traumatic events in the respondent's life materially contributed to her psychological injuries under the 'crumbling skull' or successive tortious events principles.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge erred in relying on the material contribution test for causation, which led to her failure to leave these questions with the jury.

However, the Court dismissed the appeal, concluding the error did not cause a substantial wrong because the evidence that other incidents contributed to the damages was too weak to warrant jury consideration.

The general damages award, while high, was not plainly unreasonable.