Dr. Catherine Bart

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to income replacement benefits for the first 104 weeks post-accident, as she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker.

However, she was not entitled to income replacement benefits beyond 104 weeks, as she failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal also partially approved a treatment plan for assistive devices, but denied other treatment plans for occupational therapy, rehabilitative therapy, and a massage therapy assessment.

The applicant's request for costs was denied.

The applicants sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision finding them liable for sexual harassment and creating a poisoned work environment, and ordering them to pay $200,000 to the respondent.

The applicants argued the Vice-Chair's approach to credibility was unreasonable and procedurally unfair, particularly regarding the respondent's memory issues and the use of expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Vice-Chair's credibility assessments were reasonable, did not improperly rely on oath-helping, and did not subject the applicant's evidence to unequal scrutiny.