Dr. Bruce Stewart

The plaintiffs brought an action for medical negligence against Dr. Ibrahim following a Tension-Free Vaginal Tape (TVT) surgery performed on Ms. O'Neill-Renouf.

Immediately after the surgery, Ms. O'Neill-Renouf experienced severe pain in her right thigh, which was later diagnosed as an injury to her right obturator nerve, resulting in permanent pain and physical limitations.

The plaintiffs alleged the injury was caused by incorrect needle placement during the surgery, constituting a breach of the standard of care.

The defendant argued the injury was due to edema (swelling) tracking naturally from the surgical site.

The court found the plaintiff's theory to be the only reasonable explanation, concluding that Dr. Ibrahim was liable for the damages due to a breach of the standard of care.

The plaintiff was rendered an incomplete quadriplegic following a third motor vehicle accident.

Her insurer, ING, terminated her statutory accident benefits, arguing her condition was caused by prior accidents and a pre-existing spinal disease.

The trial judge found the third accident materially contributed to her impairment, granted declarations for ongoing benefits, and awarded aggravated damages and a risk premium.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal upheld the declarations, the application of the material contribution test to accident benefits, and the aggravated damages award.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to set aside the risk premium, as it is not permitted under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The applicant, an 81-year-old man, was run over by his own vehicle, sustaining orthopaedic injuries.

He subsequently developed significant cognitive impairments.

The insurer denied catastrophic impairment benefits, arguing the cognitive decline was caused by a pre-existing subdural haematoma rather than the accident.

The arbitrator preferred the applicant's medical evidence, finding that the accident likely caused a minor head trauma that, combined with the pre-existing haematoma, resulted in brain edema and catastrophic impairment.

The applicant was awarded ongoing attendant care and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision finding that the claimant suffered a catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator relied on Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 9 or less taken within the first hour of the accident.

The insurer argued the scores were confounded by intubation, seizures, and facial injuries, and were not taken within a 'reasonable period of time'.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the arbitrator's factual findings that the early scores validly reflected brain impairment and were taken within a reasonable time.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for enhanced statutory accident benefits, claiming a catastrophic impairment based on a brain impairment resulting in a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 9 or less.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the GCS scores were confounded by medical interventions and seizures, and that the applicant did not maintain the score for a reasonable time.

The arbitrator found that the applicant maintained a GCS score of 9 or less for about one hour after the accident, which was a reasonable time given the circumstances, and that the scores were not confounded by intubation during that period.

The applicant was designated as catastrophically impaired.

The applicant sustained a cervical spinal cord injury in a motor vehicle accident, resulting in quadriplegia.

He claimed entitlement to an increased maximum monthly attendant care benefit under section 47(6) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, arguing he also suffered a separate psychological injury (major depressive disorder) requiring additional care.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant did suffer a psychological injury as a result of the accident, the attendant care services required for this psychological impairment overlapped with the 24-hour care already required for his physical injuries.

Therefore, the applicant was not entitled to the higher maximum under section 47(6) and the insurer was obliged to pay the standard catastrophic maximum under section 47(5).

The applicant, a pedestrian, was struck by a car and sustained physical injuries and a traumatic brain injury.

He subsequently developed bipolar affective disorder.

The insurer terminated his weekly non-income benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's psychiatric illness was caused by the accident and that he was substantially unable to perform his essential tasks for the period up to 156 weeks post-accident, entitling him to benefits under s. 13(1) of the Schedule.

However, the arbitrator concluded the applicant did not meet the stricter test under s. 13(8) for benefits beyond 156 weeks, as he was not continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of his normal activities.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's termination of benefits was not unreasonable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed weekly benefits and yard maintenance expenses from his insurer.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's disability was not caused by the accident and that he lacked motivation.

The arbitrator found that the accident aggravated the applicant's pre-existing spinal degeneration, causing a substantial inability to perform his essential daily tasks, including home renovations and strenuous recreational activities.

The arbitrator awarded three years of weekly benefits and partial yard maintenance expenses.

Furthermore, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay a $10,000 special award under section 282(10) of the Insurance Act, finding that the insurer's continued denial of the claim after receiving objective MRI evidence was unreasonable.