Dr. Chan

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued her injuries were not minor, citing chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly soft-tissue sprains and strains.

Relying on the respondent's section 44 assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove her impairments warranted treatment beyond the MIG.

The disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

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

The insurer denied treatment plans for a psychological assessment and chiropractic services, arguing the appellant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant sustained predominantly minor injuries and failed to prove that she suffered from chronic pain that would take her out of the MIG.

The Tribunal further held that the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, relying on insurer examinations that found no psychological diagnosis and no need for further facilities-based treatment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a cyclist injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) after the respondent insurer terminated them.

The adjudicator reviewed the medical evidence, including multiple Insurer's Examinations, which concluded the applicant could perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a prep cook/dishwasher.

The applicant failed to provide contradictory medical evidence to meet his burden of proof.

The application for both pre-104 week and post-104 week IRBs was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for three treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the plans based on insurer examinations concluding the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and that his impairments were not attributable to the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had a pre-existing condition of degenerative disc disease and failed to provide sufficient medical evidence demonstrating that the accident aggravated this condition or caused the current impairments.

Relying on the persuasive reports of the insurer's examiners, the Tribunal concluded the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought attendant care benefits (ACB) and a special award from her insurer.

The insurer had previously conceded catastrophic impairment and entitlement to some benefits but disputed the quantum of ACB and the special award.

The arbitrator found the applicant's occupational therapist's evidence to be reasonable and holistic, awarding ACB of $1,728.19 and $2,593.67 per month for the respective periods.

The arbitrator also found the insurer's conduct in relying on flawed assessments and ignoring cognitive issues to be unreasonable, thereby meeting the threshold for a special award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently sustained a disc herniation while performing deadlifts with a personal trainer to strengthen his back.

The respondent denied income replacement benefits, arguing the disc herniation was a separate injury not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test and found the disc herniation was causally connected to the accident, as the applicant was performing the exercises to rehabilitate his accident-related back injury.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment for the first 104 weeks, and a complete inability to engage in suitable employment thereafter.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits and the cost of a vocational assessment.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent denied on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that his physical injuries, including a partial shoulder tear, and psychological impairments, diagnosed as an adjustment disorder, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the physical injuries were predominantly minor and that the psychological diagnosis was not supported by the psychometric testing or DSM-5 criteria.

The application was dismissed, and no benefits or awards were granted.

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

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant did not meet the test for IRBs and failed to attend scheduled independent medical examinations (IEs).

The Tribunal found the applicant's credibility lacking due to her failure to produce documents explaining her non-attendance at the IEs and drew an adverse inference.

However, relying on the applicant's psychological expert, the Tribunal concluded she suffered severe psychological impairments rendering her substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker.

The Tribunal awarded ongoing IRBs, excluding the period of non-attendance at the IEs, but denied the disputed treatment plans as duplicative or unproven.

An appellant appealed a disposition decision of the Ontario Review Board dated June 7, 2016, which declined to modify the conditions of his detention order to provide broader community access privileges.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder for second degree murder and was detained at a mental health facility.

The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the Board failed to consider readily available and relevant information from the original NCR hearing; and second, that the disposition was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the Board's decision was reasonable and that the NCR hearing information was not material to the narrow issue before the Board regarding whether the appellant's risk could be managed through modified detention terms.

An appellant found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for criminal harassment appealed the Ontario Review Board's disposition that he constituted a significant threat to public safety and should be transferred between secure forensic units.

The appellant had been detained in the mental health system for over ten years.

Fresh evidence from the appellant's treating psychiatrist and a clinical forensic psychologist using a stalking-specific risk assessment tool concluded the appellant no longer posed a significant threat and was entitled to an absolute discharge.

The majority allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Board for fresh determination.

The dissenting judge would have granted an absolute discharge directly, finding the fresh evidence uncontradicted and unequivocal.

The accused applied for bail while facing charges including first degree murder of a newborn child, concealing the body of a child, failing to obtain assistance in childbirth with intent to conceal birth, and failing to provide the necessaries of life.

The Crown opposed release relying primarily on the accused’s statement that she had suffocated the infant.

The court reviewed psychiatric evidence suggesting serious mental health concerns and the possible applicability of the infanticide provisions, as well as the absence of a determined cause of death and uncertainty whether the child was born alive.

Considering the tertiary ground under s. 515(10)(c) of the Criminal Code and the factors set out in R v St-Cloud, the court found the Crown’s case not strong and accepted a detailed release plan with family sureties and medical supervision.

Bail was granted subject to strict conditions including house arrest, psychiatric treatment, and supervision by sureties.

The appellant appealed an Ontario Review Board disposition granting the respondent an absolute discharge.

The respondent had been found not guilty of second-degree murder by reason of insanity in 1983.

The Board concluded the respondent posed a minimal risk to the public, relying partly on his attending psychiatrist's belief that he would continue his relationship with the hospital.

On appeal, the appellant sought to introduce fresh evidence showing that the respondent severed his relationship with the psychiatrist following the absolute discharge.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, finding it undermined a central premise of the Board's reasoning, and ordered a new hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated weekly income benefits.

The applicant sought arbitration for ongoing weekly income benefits and housekeeping expenses, claiming disability due to chronic pain and fibromyalgia.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the insurer's psychological expert, finding that the applicant's pain behavior was not organically based and was inadvertently reinforced by her family.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant was not disabled from working and dismissed the claim for ongoing income benefits.

However, the arbitrator awarded $4,780 for housekeeping and babysitting expenses incurred during a reasonable recovery and transition period.

The appellant appealed an arbitration decision denying his claim for weekly income benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the arbitrator failed to give proper weight to evidence of a flare-up of back problems and a bulging disc.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator properly weighed the evidence, preferring the uniform opinions of several orthopaedic specialists over the appellant's general practitioner.

The arbitrator's conclusion that the appellant was not substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident work was supported by the evidence.

No appeal expenses were awarded.