Dr. Donald Young

The defendants brought a motion for an order compelling the plaintiff to attend an independent medical examination (IME) with a neuropsychologist in Hamilton.

The plaintiff agreed to the IME and the choice of physician but sought accommodation due to childcare responsibilities and ongoing family and criminal proceedings.

The court, while acknowledging the defendants' entitlement to the IME, imposed conditions to accommodate the plaintiff, including covering transportation and childcare expenses, and allowing the assessment to be conducted over multiple days if necessary to respect her childcare commitments.

The defendant Jamie Macari moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to undergo two independent medical examinations (IMEs) and to pay a late cancellation fee for a missed appointment.

The plaintiff sought additional conditions for the IMEs, specifically regarding "ghost writing" of expert reports, and opposed paying the cancellation fee.

The court allowed the defendant's motion in part, imposing modified conditions for the IMEs to ensure expert reports are solely authored by the examining doctor and are compliant with Rules 33.06 and 53.03(2.1), and ordered the plaintiff to pay a reduced portion of the cancellation fee.

The defendant Ministry of Transportation brought a motion seeking orders requiring the plaintiff to complete a further future cost of care assessment at her home and to attend a defence psychological examination under Rule 33 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The action arose from a motor vehicle accident and was scheduled for trial in less than three months.

The court held that the moving party failed to demonstrate that additional occupational therapy assessment time or a further psychological examination was necessary to ensure trial fairness.

The existing medical evidence and prior defence examinations were sufficient to permit the defence to respond to the plaintiff’s claims.

The motion was dismissed, although leave was granted for the defence psychiatrist to provide a limited supplemental report responding to a recent expert report.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision where liability was admitted and damages remained in issue, the plaintiff moved to exclude evidence from experts who prepared accident benefits reports for the plaintiff’s insurer.

The plaintiff argued the reports were irrelevant, non-compliant with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, prejudicial to trial fairness, and duplicative.

The court held that although the experts had not signed the Form 53 acknowledgement required under Rule 53.03(2.1), the rule applied even to experts retained by non-parties and the non‑compliance could be cured by granting leave subject to obtaining the acknowledgement.

The court found portions of the reports remained relevant to the plaintiff’s cognitive, emotional, and physical condition at an intermediate stage following the accident, though opinions on employability were excluded as no longer relevant.

The motion to exclude the expert evidence was dismissed, subject to conditions.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing caregiver benefits beyond the 104-week mark, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life due to chronic pain and depression.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's severe chronic pain disorder and major depression continuously prevented her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities, including caring for her three special needs children.

The arbitrator awarded the maximum weekly caregiver benefit of $350.00, plus interest, but denied the applicant's claim for a special award, finding the insurer's termination of benefits was not unreasonable based on the medical reports available at the time.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits, medical benefits for physiotherapy and massage therapy, and the cost of various assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding the applicant entirely lacking in credibility due to numerous contradictions regarding his pre-accident health, employment duties, living arrangements, and the accident itself.

Surveillance evidence and independent medical examinations demonstrated significant symptom magnification and inconsistent effort.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his employment tasks and that the claimed medical treatments and assessments were not reasonable or necessary.

The appellant was injured in a 1993 motor vehicle accident and claimed ongoing weekly income benefits and psychological treatment expenses.

The insurer terminated benefits in 1997.

The arbitrator found the appellant was not entitled to weekly benefits beyond July 1997 and ordered her to repay a portion of the psychological treatment fees, finding the frequency of sessions unreasonable.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's findings, noting the appellant's significant pre-existing psychological issues and lack of objective evidence of ongoing disability.

The insurer's cross-appeal was allowed, and the appellant was ordered to repay $17,371.20 in interim benefits previously awarded.

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

The insurer terminated benefits, and the applicant applied for arbitration.

The arbitrator found significant credibility issues with the applicant, relying on expert psychological evidence that the applicant was malingering and intentionally producing poor results on cognitive tests.

The arbitrator also found that the applicant's alleged post-traumatic stress disorder was likely caused by a subsequent incident involving a snake, rather than the accident.

However, the arbitrator accepted that the accident reactivated a pre-existing knee condition that eventually required surgery, and awarded income replacement benefits for an eight-week recovery period following the surgery.

All other claims for benefits were dismissed, save for the cost of one disability certificate.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant brought a motion for interim weekly income benefits, and the insurer brought a cross-motion for the production of the clinical notes of the applicant's treating psychologist.

The arbitrator granted the motion for interim benefits, finding the applicant had established a prima facie case for entitlement and demonstrated financial need.

The arbitrator dismissed the insurer's motion for production of the clinical notes, finding the potential harm to the applicant's treatment outweighed the probative value of the notes, but ordered the production of raw testing data to the insurer's psychologist.