Dr. Douglas Salmon

The applicant was struck by a vehicle while crossing a street and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits from her insurer.

The insurer terminated IRBs and denied further medical benefits.

At arbitration, the applicant claimed physical and psychological impairments, relying on a multi-disciplinary assessment.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's expert psychological evidence, noting the assessors had little to no contact with the applicant and their conclusions were inconsistent with her failure to seek psychological treatment and her academic achievements post-accident.

Finding no physical or psychological impairments caused by the accident, the arbitrator dismissed the claims for IRBs, medical benefits, and a special award.

The plaintiff sought damages after a fall from an apartment building fire escape, alleging breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act and the Fire Code due to accumulated snow and ice.

The court held that fire escapes must be kept safe for emergency use and that the occupier’s duty was not negated merely because tenants used the area for smoking, but found the defendants had a reasonable winter maintenance system in place.

The plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that ice on the fire escape caused the fall, particularly given credibility problems, inconsistent accounts of the accident, and photographic and witness evidence inconsistent with the alleged icy condition.

The action was dismissed.

The court nevertheless assessed hypothetical damages totalling substantial non-pecuniary, loss of competitive advantage, future care, and OHIP subrogated amounts.

The applicant was struck by a tow-truck after a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated his weekly income replacement benefits in September 1995.

The applicant applied for arbitration, arguing he remained substantially disabled from his pre-accident employment as a gas station attendant due to physical and psychological injuries.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant was not physically disabled from working, he required psychological treatment to facilitate his return to the workplace.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant remained substantially disabled until his psychotherapy sessions concluded in March 1996, after which any residual restrictions were self-imposed or could be accommodated.

The applicant was awarded income replacement benefits for the closed period from September 1995 to March 1996.