Dr. Clifford

The applicant was involved in a 2019 rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit and various treatment plans.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that her ongoing symptoms were attributable to a prior 2014 accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing chronic pain prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the rigorous test for a non-earner benefit, as she could not establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life caused by the 2019 accident rather than her pre-existing condition.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied claims for psychological and physical treatment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from accident-related psychological impairments, including major depressive disorder and PTSD, which removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychologists over the respondent's assessor, noting the respondent's assessor's conclusions contradicted his own test results.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the disputed psychological assessments and chiropractic services, along with interest on overdue payments.

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

The respondent denied income replacement benefits (IRB) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits, arguing the applicant failed to comply with requests for information under s. 33 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant adequately complied with the s. 33 requests and was procedurally entitled to the IRB.

The Tribunal also found that a proposed mattress and chiropractic treatment were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating practitioners over the respondent's assessors.

The applicant was awarded the disputed benefits with interest.

The applicant sought payment for a chiropractic treatment plan in the amount of $2,670.00 following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claim based on a section 44 assessment indicating that further passive facility-based treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, noting her significant pre-accident history of chronic pain and the lack of evidence showing the proposed treatment provided benefit.

The claims for the treatment plan, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

Following a three-week jury trial in a personal injury action, the plaintiff was awarded $241,740 in damages.

Prior to trial, the defendants had served an offer to settle for $375,000 plus costs.

Because the jury award was less favourable than the defendants' offer, the defendants sought costs from the date of the offer pursuant to Rule 49.10.

The plaintiff argued that her impecuniosity should relieve her from paying the defendants' costs, as it would effectively offset her damages award.

The court rejected this argument, finding no reason to deviate from the normal costs rules.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer, and the defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs thereafter.

The plaintiff suffered a low back injury in a motor vehicle accident.

At trial, the defendant successfully moved for a finding that the plaintiff did not meet the threshold for permanent serious impairment under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The trial judge found the impairment was neither permanent nor serious.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal held the trial judge erred in finding the impairment was not permanent, as there was no evidence the pain would completely resolve.

The Court also found the trial judge took an overly narrow approach to whether the impairment was serious by focusing only on the plaintiff's ability to resume employment and household duties, without considering the effect of continuing pain on her enjoyment of life.

The appeal was allowed.

The plaintiffs were injured in motor vehicle accidents and commenced both accident benefit arbitration proceedings and tort actions.

In the tort actions, the defendants sought production of medical reports obtained during the arbitration proceedings.

The motions judges dismissed the requests, relying on the implied undertaking rule.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that neither the deemed undertaking rule nor the implied undertaking rule protected the medical reports from disclosure.

The reports were highly relevant to the tort actions, and the plaintiffs had waived their privacy interests by putting their medical conditions in issue.

The appeals were allowed and the plaintiffs were ordered to produce the reports.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's decision awarding the insured weekly income benefits beyond the 156-week mark and a $20,000 special award.

The insured had suffered physical and psychological injuries in a severe motor vehicle accident and was unable to continue working.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's finding that the insured was continuously prevented from engaging in suitable employment, noting the insurer failed to provide evidence of alternative suitable jobs while the insured adduced substantial medical evidence of disability.

The special award was also confirmed because the insurer unreasonably terminated benefits and disregarded the recommendations of its own medical experts.

The Applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents in May 1994 and received other disability benefits for 104 weeks.

She applied for ongoing benefits beyond the 104-week mark, which requires a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Arbitrator found that while the Applicant's life had changed, she retained a number of abilities and was not continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

The claim for ongoing benefits and a special award was dismissed.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the Insurer terminated them after 156 weeks.

The Applicant, who was a prospective university student at the time of the accident, claimed ongoing entitlement under section 12 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant's essential occupational tasks included those of an undergraduate student.

Accepting the medical evidence that the Applicant suffered from chronic pain and post-traumatic headaches, the arbitrator concluded that she was continuously prevented from engaging in full-time post-secondary studies or any comparable employment.

The Applicant was awarded ongoing weekly income benefits and her arbitration expenses, but her claim for a special award was dismissed.

The insurer appealed an arbitrator's order requiring it to provide the catastrophically injured insured with a suitably modified mini-van under section 6(1)(f) of the No-Fault Benefits Schedule.

The insurer argued that transportation expenses were exhaustively covered by section 6(1)(d) and that a van was not 'necessary' for rehabilitation.

The insured cross-appealed, seeking a full-size custom van and a special award.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the insurer's appeal, finding that section 6(1)(f) authorized the provision of a motor vehicle and that a broad definition of rehabilitation included psychological adjustment and independence.

The cross-appeal for a full-size van was also dismissed, as the mini-van was deemed a reasonable expense.

The Director's Delegate refused to admit fresh evidence on the special award issue, finding it could have been adduced at the original hearing.