Dr. Derry

During a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought to call her treating psychologist to give opinion evidence beyond that of a participant expert.

The defendant objected, arguing the psychologist's reports did not comply with Rule 53.03, the plaintiff had not sought leave to call more than three experts under s. 12 of the Evidence Act, and the psychologist lacked the requisite impartiality.

The court held that the reports collectively complied with Rule 53.03 and granted leave to call the witness, finding no trial unfairness or prejudice to the defendant.

The court also found no clear evidence that the treating relationship would prevent the psychologist from fulfilling her duty to the court, leaving the final assessment of her impartiality to a qualification voir dire.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he was not catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by providing inadequate reasons, displaying bias, and failing to address production order breaches, and that the adjudicator made errors of law and fact in assessing his psychological and social functioning impairments.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the adjudicator provided clear and adequate reasons, no reasonable apprehension of bias was established, and the adjudicator's weighing of the expert evidence and application of the legal test for marked impairment were reasonable and free of error.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Schedule and claimed entitlement to a post-104 income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment, as he did not demonstrate a marked impairment in at least two of the four functional domains, specifically finding his social functioning was compatible with some useful functioning.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's claim for a post-104 IRB, finding that the combination of his physical, psychological, cognitive, and visual impairments resulted in a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

Interest was awarded on the overdue IRB payments.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed treatment plans for psychological services, an audiometric assessment, an optometric assessment, and a driving assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the psychological, audiometric, and optometric plans were reasonable and necessary, largely relying on the respondent's section 44 medical examination reports.

However, the Tribunal approved the driving assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's well-documented driving anxiety.

The applicant was a pedestrian whose foot was driven over by a vehicle.

He sought accident benefits, which the respondent denied on the basis that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he sustained a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were minor and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found no accident-related psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the requested psychological assessment and interest were denied.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans and income replacement benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a mild traumatic brain injury and psychological impairments, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved all six disputed treatment plans as reasonable and necessary.

Furthermore, the Tribunal awarded income replacement benefits, finding the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a produce clerk.

The applicant's claim for a special award for unreasonable delay was dismissed due to his own delays in providing documentation.

The appellant was injured in an altercation outside a bar where he was assaulted and subsequently struck by the assailants' departing vehicle.

He appealed an arbitrator's decision denying his claims for income replacement benefits and further medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) cap.

The Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's findings that only the vehicle strike constituted an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, that the appellant failed to prove pre-accident employment, and that his soft tissue injuries fell within the MIG.

The appeal was dismissed, save for a correction to the arbitrator's costs order.

The Applicant sought accident benefits following an incident where he was assaulted by individuals who threw a rock at him from a vehicle, punched and kicked him, and then struck him with the vehicle as they drove away.

The Arbitrator found that the injuries from the assault (rock, punches, kicks) did not arise from an 'accident' as defined in the Schedule, but the soft tissue injuries from being struck by the retreating vehicle did.

However, the Applicant's claims for Income Replacement Benefits were denied due to a lack of credible evidence regarding his employment status at the time of the accident.

The Arbitrator also concluded that the injuries sustained from the vehicle contact fell within the Minor Injury Guideline, restricting his entitlement to Medical and Rehabilitation Benefits.

Appeal involving failed arm's length negotiations between mining companies over possible joint development of gold properties in the Hemlo area.

The respondent disclosed confidential geological information and its acquisition plans for an adjacent patented property during negotiations; the appellant then used that information to acquire the property for itself.

A majority held that the appellant breached a duty of confidence, and the Court upheld the constructive trust remedy requiring transfer of the property, subject to compensation for improvements.

The decision contains major reasons on the distinction between breach of confidence and fiduciary duty, and on the availability of constructive trust as a restitutionary remedy.