Dr. David Duncan

The grievor, a Client Representative, went off work following a car accident and claimed long-term income protection (LTIP) benefits for the 'own occupation' period.

The insurance carrier denied the claim on the basis that she was not totally disabled, citing a lack of objective evidence of cognitive impairment.

The arbitrator found that the grievor's job required significant cognitive demands and that her diminished cognitive efficiency, as confirmed by an independent medical examination, prevented her from performing her essential duties efficiently and accurately.

The arbitrator held that the absence of objective evidence was not a valid reason to deny the claim, given the credible self-reporting of symptoms.

The grievance was allowed, and the grievor was found to be totally disabled during the relevant period.

The plaintiff, a cyclist with significant pre-existing psychological and cognitive vulnerabilities, was struck by a police cruiser while riding through a pedestrian crosswalk at night.

The court apportioned liability 60% to the defendant police officer and 40% to the plaintiff.

Applying the thin skull rule, the court found the collision exacerbated the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions and caused a mild traumatic brain injury, rendering him completely disabled and requiring 24/7 attendant care.

Total damages were assessed at over $5.2 million, reduced to $3,131,370 after accounting for contributory negligence.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the appellant's ongoing disability was due to a pre-existing schizoaffective disorder rather than the accident.

The arbitrator agreed, finding the accident's material contribution to the disability ended by August 2001, and dismissed claims for various assessment expenses.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decisions, finding no error of law in the arbitrator's evaluation of the medical evidence, the impact of the appellant's pre-existing condition, or the rejection of assessment expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits and medical/rehabilitation expenses.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant's disability was due to a pre-existing schizoaffective disorder rather than the accident.

The arbitrator found that the trauma of the accident triggered an episode of the applicant's pre-existing psychiatric illness, entitling him to income replacement benefits for a limited period.

Claims for various assessments were largely dismissed, save for one functional capacity evaluation.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's termination of benefits was not unreasonable given the complex medical evidence.

The applicant, an elderly pedestrian, sustained a closed head injury when struck by a vehicle.

She claimed statutory accident benefits for care-giving services provided by her daughter and travel expenses for her granddaughter.

The arbitrator found that the accident materially contributed to the applicant's cognitive impairments.

However, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Monochino, the arbitrator held that the applicant was not entitled to care-giver benefits because her daughter did not lose income and did not qualify as a professional care-giver.

The claim for travel expenses was dismissed as the trip was not for the applicant's benefit.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed.