Dr. Cohen

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed his injuries, including a concussion, psychological impairments, and chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient objective medical evidence to support a concussion or psychological impairment diagnosis.

Applying the AMA Guides, the Tribunal also found the applicant's chronic pain did not result in a functional impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limits, which had been exhausted.

The application was dismissed.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their medical malpractice action against an obstetrician following a catastrophic birth injury.

The infant suffered acute near-total oxygen deprivation prior to birth, resulting in severe permanent brain damage.

At trial, the judge dismissed the action, finding no breach of the standard of care and no causation.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons were legally inadequate regarding causation and one of the standard of care issues (the failure to complete the delivery with Kielland forceps).

The reasons failed to explain critical findings, preventing meaningful appellate review.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered on all issues of liability and damages.

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a $10,000,000 settlement arising from a medical malpractice claim involving severe birth injuries to the minor plaintiff.

The minor plaintiff sustained permanent neurological injuries, including cerebral palsy, requiring 24-hour care for the rest of her life.

The court approved the settlement allocation for the minor, her parents, and OHIP, finding it fair and reasonable given the significant litigation risks regarding standard of care and causation.

The court also authorized the parents to use a portion of their settlement funds to immediately purchase a wheelchair-accessible home, while reserving its decision on the proposed $3,136,500 counsel fee pending input from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The accused killed the victim while suffering from a severe mental disorder.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission, supported by two comprehensive forensic psychiatric reports, that the accused was incapable of assessing the moral wrongfulness of his actions due to psychosis and delusions.

The court accepted the joint submission, rendered a special verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, and referred the disposition to the Ontario Review Board.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning four young children who were apprehended due to severe neglect and developmental delays.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for crown wardship without access.

The father sought return of the children to his care, either pursuant to a section 57.1 order or with supervision.

The mother sought access.

The court found that the children continued to be in need of protection due to risks of physical and emotional harm and developmental delays.

The court determined that the father lacked the insight, judgment, and capacity to meet the complex medical and developmental needs of the children, despite community supports.

The court ordered that all four children be made crown wards for the purpose of adoption with no access to either parent.

The appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's reliance on expert psychiatric evidence indicating that the appellant posed a significant risk of violence to hospital staff if he remained in a medium secure facility without a medication change.

The court found it was reasonable for the Board to rely on evidence regarding enhanced security and potential privileges at Waypoint.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the 12-year sentence imposed on the respondent for his role in a terrorist bomb plot targeting locations in Toronto.

The respondent had pleaded guilty to doing anything with intent to cause an explosion for the benefit of a terrorist group.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge over-emphasized mitigating factors and under-emphasized the enormity of the crime.

The effective sentence was increased from 12 to 18 years, and an order was made requiring the respondent to serve one half of his sentence before being eligible for full parole.

The appellants appealed a summary judgment dismissing their action.

The Court of Appeal found that while there was enough evidence to raise a genuine issue for trial regarding the standard of care, the appellants failed to put forward sufficient evidence on causation to raise a genuine issue for trial.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.