Dr. Dowhaniuk

The defendants moved for an order compelling the plaintiff to attend a psychological assessment and for leave to serve the resulting report after the expert report deadline, in the context of a personal injury action arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision.

The court granted the motion, finding that both parties bore responsibility for the lack of an expert report schedule and that fairness required the defendants be permitted to respond to the plaintiff’s psychological claims.

The court also granted leave for late service of the report, provided it was served by April 4, 2025, and encouraged the parties to resolve costs.

The plaintiff was struck by a transit bus while crossing the street, sustaining multiple fractures to her left ankle and knee.

Following a jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $175,000 in general damages, the defendants brought a motion arguing the plaintiff did not meet the statutory threshold under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed the medical evidence, preferring the plaintiff's orthopaedic expert who found objective evidence of post-traumatic osteoarthritis and permanent restricted range of motion.

The court concluded the plaintiff sustained a permanent and serious impairment of an important physical function that substantially interfered with her activities of daily living.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, entitling the plaintiff to the jury's award for non-pecuniary damages.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, who claims over $4 million in damages following a motor vehicle accident, to attend independent medical examinations by a psychiatrist, neurologist, physiatrist, and vocational evaluator.

The plaintiff opposed the assessments, arguing they were unnecessary and duplicative.

The court granted the motion, finding that given the complex medical issues, including alleged traumatic brain injury, chronic pain, and significant loss of income claims, trial fairness dictated that the defendants be permitted to have the plaintiff assessed by these specialists to respond to the plaintiff's expert evidence.

The court also admonished plaintiff's counsel for inappropriately attempting to impose conditions directly on the defendants' proposed assessors.

The plaintiff appealed an order of an Associate Judge requiring her to attend in-person defence medical examinations with a physiatrist and a neuropsychologist.

The plaintiff had refused to attend due to fears of contracting COVID-19.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Associate Judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding that the in-person examinations were necessary and that the assessment facility's COVID-19 safety protocols were adequate.

The applicant was struck by a streetcar as a pedestrian and sought a catastrophic impairment designation under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule due to psychological, emotional, and behavioural impairments.

The respondent denied the designation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a traumatic brain injury resulting in a Class 4 (Marked) impairment in the Adaptation domain under Chapter 14 of the AMA Guides.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, noting the applicant's inability to cope with stressors, recurring need to escape uncontrolled situations, and suicidal ideations.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment and is entitled to extended medical and rehabilitative treatment limits.

The applicant sought post-104 income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to work due to physical and psychological injuries.

The insurer denied the benefits and presented surveillance and social media evidence showing the applicant actively operating a holistic business, working as a life coach, and giving motivational speeches.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility and preferred the evidence of the insurer's neuropsychologist over the applicant's experts, who were unaware of her business activities.

The application for income replacement benefits, a special award, and interest was dismissed, with expenses awarded to the insurer.

The plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in a multi-vehicle highway collision.

He lost control of his vehicle after being cut off by an unidentified driver, struck the median, and was subsequently T-boned by the defendant's vehicle.

The court found the unidentified driver 70% liable and the defendant 30% liable for following too closely.

The plaintiff was awarded over $3.2 million in damages, primarily for future care costs.

The plaintiff's claim against his own insurer for unidentified motorist coverage was dismissed because the identified defendant was found partially liable.