Dr. Dhaliwal

This high-conflict family law case involved a dispute over parenting arrangements for a 10-year-old child and spousal support.

The applicant mother alleged sexual assault by the respondent father and sought no contact, while the father denied the allegations and sought to continue sole custody with expanded parenting time for the mother.

The court found the sexual assault allegations unproven and concluded that the parties' acrimony precluded co-parenting.

Sole custody was granted to the father, with a graduated expansion of the mother's parenting time.

Spousal support was awarded to the mother for a fixed period, with income imputed to her due to intentional unemployment.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer denied the claims.

The arbitrator dismissed all of the applicant's claims, finding that the applicant lacked credibility and failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment or his housekeeping tasks.

The arbitrator also found that the applicant's wife did not sustain an economic loss to justify the attendant care and housekeeping claims.

Claims for a special award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a psychiatric disorder.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant's treating psychiatrist provided sufficient evidence of a Marked Impairment under the AMA Guidelines, satisfying the catastrophic impairment threshold.

The arbitrator also awarded a special award of $9,629.70 against the Insurer for unreasonably delaying the payment of income replacement benefits for 527 days without a valid reason, but denied a special award for medical and attendant care benefits.

Following a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought damages for various physical and psychological injuries.

A jury awarded the plaintiff $10,000 in general damages and dismissed her other claims.

The defendants subsequently brought a threshold motion under section 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court held that the jury's verdict should be strongly considered when deciding a threshold motion.

Finding that the plaintiff's current conditions were not caused by the accident and agreeing with the jury's implicit finding of only minor and transitory injuries, the court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed the action.