Dr. Charlebois

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming he was substantially unable to perform his pre-accident job as a retail investigator.

The insurer terminated benefits and sought repayment of an overpayment.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claim, finding he lacked credibility and had misrepresented his pre-accident medical condition, the nature of his injuries, and the reasons for leaving his employment.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant left his job due to poor performance rather than accident-related injuries.

The applicant was ordered to repay $1,140.30 in overpaid benefits.

The appellant was severely injured in a car accident and treated by the respondent orthopaedic surgeon.

The respondent failed to diagnose a spinal fracture, leading to delayed immobilization, and the appellant was eventually diagnosed with paraparesis.

The trial judge found no fault and no causation.

The Court of Appeal found the respondent committed a fault by failing to conduct proper neurological tests and immobilize the patient, but upheld the trial judge's conclusion that the accident itself, not the medical fault, caused the paraparesis.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, affirming the Court of Appeal's intervention on the standard of care and its factual findings on causation, and declined to apply a presumption of causation.