Dr. Chanth Seyone

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment based on mental or behavioural impairments, as well as ongoing income replacement benefits and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, as the accident exacerbated her pre-existing mental health issues, resulting in marked impairments in activities of daily living, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

The Tribunal also found the applicant entitled to a post-104-week income replacement benefit, concluding she suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment due to her psychological impairments.

Claims for social rehabilitation counselling and a separate file review fee for a catastrophic assessment were dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury trial where the jury awarded zero damages, the defendant brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function caused by the 2013 accident.

The plaintiff's medical evidence was flawed because his experts were either unaware of or could not parse out the effects of three subsequent motor vehicle accidents.

The defendant's motion was granted and the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was dismissed.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed significant neurological, psychological, and physical injuries.

At trial, the jury awarded $30,000 for general damages and $48,000 for past lost income, rejecting claims for future loss.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury on the 'material contribution' test for contributory causation.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in his instruction by not referring to the appellant's overall post-accident condition, the error occasioned no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice given the evidence and the jury's verdict.