Dr. Campbell

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans and an income replacement benefit on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and captured by the MIG.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claims of psychological impairment and chronic pain, noting inconsistent self-reporting and placing little weight on a chronic pain assessment conducted via videoconference without objective documentation.

As the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG and the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The claim for an income replacement benefit was also dismissed as the applicant provided no submissions on the issue.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle and sought funding for a multidisciplinary Catastrophic Determination Assessment.

The insurer partially approved the request but denied $8,312.81 for clinic file reviews, transportation, and a neurological assessment.

The Tribunal found that the $2,000 limit per assessment under s. 25(5)(a) of the Schedule is a total cap that includes file reviews and report preparation.

The Tribunal also found the transportation expenses fell within the 50 km deductible and that the applicant failed to prove the neurological assessment was reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff was catastrophically injured when she lost control of her vehicle on a snow-covered and icy municipal road, crossing the centre line and colliding with an oncoming vehicle.

The plaintiff sued the municipality for failing to keep the road in a reasonable state of repair.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the municipality was in the midst of a winter weather event but failed to adequately treat the road, leaving it unplowed and subject to refreezing for several hours.

The court held that the road was in a state of non-repair, which caused the collision, and that the municipality failed to establish any statutory defences under the Municipal Act.

The plaintiff was found not to be contributorily negligent, and the municipality was held fully liable for the agreed-upon damages.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought medical and income replacement benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that he did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his employment tasks as a taxi driver.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his knee injuries, degenerative disc disease, psychological impairments, or chronic pain were caused by the accident or warranted removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the medical benefits claims were dismissed.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, finding insufficient evidence that the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The defendant sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment in a dental malpractice action.

The primary issues were the admissibility of a treating cardiologist's opinion on causation without strict compliance with Rule 53.03 and whether conflicting expert opinions could be resolved at the summary judgment stage.

The court, applying the principles from Westerhof v. Gee Estate, determined that the treating cardiologist was a "participant expert" whose opinion was admissible.

Given the presence of conflicting medical expert opinions on causation and questions surrounding the defendant's missing dental records, the court found that a genuine issue requiring a trial existed.

Consequently, the motion for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

The defendant dentist brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' dental malpractice action, arguing there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on causation.

The defendant relied on two Rule 53.03 compliant expert reports stating the dental procedure did not cause the plaintiff's infective endocarditis.

The plaintiffs relied on the opinion of the plaintiff's treating cardiologist, who opined the defendant did not wait long enough for prophylactic antibiotics to take effect.

The court found the treating cardiologist was a 'participant expert' whose opinion was admissible without complying with Rule 53.03.

The court dismissed the summary judgment motion, holding that a trial was required to resolve the competing medical opinions on causation.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault for allegedly burning her 3½-year-old granddaughter's face on a stove.

At trial, the unsworn child testified against the appellant, and both sides called expert witnesses regarding the burns, the child's memory, and child abuse.

The Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial, finding that while the child was properly permitted to testify, the trial judge erred by allowing an expert witness to testify that the child's behaviour indicated long-term abuse and to improperly comment on the child's credibility.

The Court also found errors in the Crown's cross-examination of a defence expert using unproven learned treatises.