Dr. Cameron Paitich

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans and assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that physical, psychological, and chronic pain impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries, relying on the insurer's medical examinations.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's psychological claims, preferring the insurer's psychological assessment which suggested the applicant was feigning symptoms.

Finally, the Tribunal found the applicant's chronic pain was related to a subsequent workplace injury rather than the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The accident occurred in June 2011, and the plaintiff suffered a stroke one month later.

The action was commenced in July 2015.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period was suspended due to the plaintiff's incapacity to commence a proceeding and that the claim was not discoverable until 2015 when a medical report causally linking the stroke to the accident was explained to her.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding both the plaintiff's capacity to commence a proceeding and the date of discoverability, given conflicting medical evidence about her cognitive impairments.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The self-represented plaintiff sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

Liability for the collision was admitted, but the defendant contested damages, causation, and whether the claim met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found no credible medical opinion supporting any serious or permanent injury caused by the collision, accepted that at most the plaintiff suffered an initial soft-tissue injury that resolved quickly, and found no credible proof of income loss or out-of-pocket expense.

The action was dismissed.

The plaintiff alleged medical negligence against an orthopaedic surgeon for failing to properly manage and refer a distal biceps tendon rupture in a timely manner, allegedly causing the plaintiff to lose the opportunity for surgical repair.

The court found that the physician diagnosed the condition, advised the patient of treatment options, and offered a referral to a specialist capable of performing the surgery, which the plaintiff declined pending MRI results for other issues.

The court concluded the physician met the applicable standard of care for a referring physician and that the plaintiff's evidence was not credible or reliable.

The court further held that the plaintiff failed to prove causation because there was no expert evidence establishing that earlier surgery would likely have resulted in a better outcome.

The action was dismissed.