Dr. Cooper

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident, sought $27,260.61 for a vehicle chassis upgrade to purchase an SUV, arguing it was necessary for her physical and emotional functioning.

The respondent denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the vehicle upgrade was reasonable and necessary, noting inconsistencies between the occupational therapist's recommendation and the driving instructor's positive observations of the applicant driving a sedan.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, which found no accident-related psychological or musculoskeletal impairment necessitating an SUV.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a medical cannabis treatment plan to address chronic neck and back pain and sleep issues.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan, relying on a section 44 assessment that concluded cannabis was not reasonable and necessary for chronic pain.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's chronic pain specialist and cannabis clinic physician, finding that the treatment goals of reducing pain were reasonable and likely to be achieved.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the cost of the treatment plan, plus interest on the overdue amount.

The applicant, a former bus driver, sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him benefits for traumatic mental stress.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant's psychological condition was primarily related to personal issues and a non-compensable employer investigation (the 'Apple incident'), rather than earlier workplace assaults.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's decisions to deny benefits and refuse reconsideration were reasonable, and that the Tribunal provided adequate reasons and appropriately weighed the medical evidence.

The appellant brought a motion to set aside a registrar's order dismissing his Small Claims Court appeal for delay.

The court applied the four-part test from Paulsson v. Cooper.

While the appellant demonstrated an intention to appeal and provided a mental health explanation for the significant delay, he failed to provide a trial transcript or demonstrate that the appeal had merit.

The court concluded that the justice of the case did not warrant setting aside the dismissal order, and the motion was dismissed with costs.

Following a wrongful dismissal trial where the plaintiff was awarded approximately $150,000 in damages, the court determined the costs of the action.

The plaintiff sought over $600,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the corporate defendants argued no costs should be awarded due to proportionality and settlement offers.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $424,584.33, finding that the defendants' 'hardball' litigation tactics and pursuit of a baseless after-acquired cause defence unnecessarily prolonged the trial.

The court also denied costs to the successful individual defendant, finding her conduct was the fundamental reason the trial was necessary.

The plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in a multi-vehicle highway collision.

He lost control of his vehicle after being cut off by an unidentified driver, struck the median, and was subsequently T-boned by the defendant's vehicle.

The court found the unidentified driver 70% liable and the defendant 30% liable for following too closely.

The plaintiff was awarded over $3.2 million in damages, primarily for future care costs.

The plaintiff's claim against his own insurer for unidentified motorist coverage was dismissed because the identified defendant was found partially liable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs), medical and rehabilitation benefits outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), and a Special Award.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment for the first 104 weeks, entitling him to IRBs for that period.

However, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment beyond the two-year mark.

The arbitrator also concluded that the applicant's injuries, including alleged chronic pain and psychological impairments, did not remove him from the MIG, as the insurer's medical evidence demonstrating no objective impairment was preferred.

The claims for additional treatment plans and a Special Award were dismissed.

In a personal injury action arising from a helicopter crash, the defendants brought several pre‑trial discovery and procedural motions shortly before trial.

The court ordered production of corporate income tax records relating to the plaintiff’s production company, confirmation from the plaintiff’s accountant regarding the production of corporate records, authorization for defence counsel to obtain contractual records relating to the plaintiff’s involvement with a film production, and permitted questioning regarding the plaintiff’s OHIP records.

However, the court refused the defendants’ request for a late independent medical examination by a neurologist, finding the request was not based on new issues and would likely delay the scheduled trial.

Costs submissions were permitted if the parties could not agree.

The applicant was injured in a head-on motor vehicle collision and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued he met the criteria under s. 2(1.2)(g) for marked mental or behavioural impairment and s. 2(1.2)(f) for 55% Whole Person Impairment.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had significant pre-existing substance abuse and psychological issues, and that his current impairments were moderate rather than marked.

The arbitrator also preferred the insurer's medical experts, finding the applicant's experts relied on flawed methodology and incomplete medical histories.

The application for catastrophic impairment was dismissed, limiting the applicant's entitlement to housekeeping and attendant care benefits to the 104-week post-accident period.

The appellant appealed his convictions for driving over eighty, dangerous driving, and impaired driving.

He argued that the police violated his s. 8 Charter rights by placing Centre of Forensic Sciences seals on vials of his blood, which had been drawn for medical purposes, prior to obtaining a search warrant.

He also argued the trial judge erred in instructing the jury on the issue of bolus drinking.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the brief sealing of the vials did not interfere with the appellant's spatial, physical, or informational privacy interests and thus did not constitute an unreasonable seizure.

The court also found the jury charge on the burden of proof regarding bolus drinking was sufficient.