Dr. Delaney

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing chronic pain and a diagnosis of spinal stenosis.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing condition would prevent recovery within the MIG, noting that post-accident clinical records showed no exacerbation of his condition.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded the applicant sustained soft tissue injuries treatable within the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for chiropractic services, a chronic pain assessment, interest, and an award were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the limits had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that pre-existing physical and psychological conditions warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG.

Relying on the respondent's section 44 assessors, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought pre- and post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs), which the respondent insurer denied.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a sheet metal fabricator and airplane mechanic due to ongoing pain from a right leg fracture.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the more stringent post-104 week test, as his chronic pain and physical limitations resulted in a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal also ordered a 10% award against the insurer under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by failing to adjust the claim after receiving compelling medical reports supporting the applicant's ongoing impairments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including non-earner, medical, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer suspended benefits after the applicant failed to attend an examination under oath, though a previous arbitrator found the notices defective.

The arbitrator found the applicant entitled to the disputed medical treatment plans, as well as attendant care and housekeeping benefits for a limited period due to the insurer's procedural breach in failing to provide assessment reports in a timely manner.

However, the claim for non-earner benefits was dismissed as the applicant did not meet the test of a complete inability to lead a normal life.

The request for a special award was also denied.

The insurer brought a motion for reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that the insured's left shoulder SLAP tear and pre-existing lower back condition fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The insurer argued the hearing adjudicator ignored medical evidence and failed to provide sufficient reasons for preferring the insured's medical experts over the insurer's experts.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request, finding that the adjudicator reasonably weighed the evidence, was not required to explicitly mention every piece of evidence, and made no significant error of fact or law.

Following a civil jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a motion for a ruling that the plaintiffs' claims did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The jury had awarded modest damages, implicitly rejecting much of the plaintiffs' evidence on causation and credibility.

However, the trial judge conducted an independent assessment and found the principal plaintiff to be credible.

The court concluded that the plaintiff suffered from chronic low back pain caused by the accident, which constituted a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and the court ruled that the plaintiffs met the statutory threshold.

The applicant was completely successful in her arbitration for statutory accident benefits and sought an assessment of her arbitration expenses.

The insurer disputed the hourly rates for senior counsel and a law clerk, the number of preparation hours, the use of junior counsel, and certain disbursements.

The arbitrator allowed the maximum hourly rate of $150 for senior counsel due to the complexity of the case and the applicant's success.

The arbitrator also allowed the use of junior counsel and a senior law clerk, and approved most of the claimed disbursements, including accounting reports used to calculate interest.

The applicant's expenses were assessed at a total of $56,592.95.

The plaintiffs appealed a Divisional Court order compelling the plaintiff to attend two defence medical examinations.

The defendant had previously brought a motion to adjourn the trial to conduct defence medicals, which was dismissed.

The defendant subsequently brought a second motion to compel attendance at rescheduled medicals prior to trial, which was also dismissed by the motion judge but allowed on appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding that the second motion was substantially the same as the first, and the defendant was precluded by issue estoppel from relitigating the matter.