Dr. Abbas Azadian

The respondent father sought an order for reunification therapy for the child, alleging parental alienation by the applicant mother.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the cause of the family dysfunction was unclear on the evidence, there was no compelling evidence that the proposed therapy would be beneficial, and the motion was brought too close to trial.

The court preferred to defer the determination of therapeutic orders and family violence allegations to trial, where a more fulsome evidentiary record and witness credibility assessment would be possible.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental/behavioural disorders and physical impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, as her psychological symptoms and knee osteoarthritis were pre-existing and not caused by the accident.

Claims for a non-earner benefit and various assessments were dismissed.

However, the Tribunal granted a treatment plan for chiropractic services, finding the applicant sustained permanent back injuries in the accident.

A claim for an award under Regulation 664 was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue chiropractic benefits.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and funding for various treatment plans following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant did not submit a completed disability certificate until February 2019, precluding non-earner benefits prior to that date.

For the period after February 2019, the adjudicator dismissed the claim because the applicant provided highly inconsistent evidence regarding his pre-accident employment and activities, making it impossible to apply the Heath test to determine if he suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, finding one statute-barred and all of them lacking contemporaneous medical evidence to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming he suffered a catastrophic impairment due to psychological and chronic pain issues.

The insurer denied the benefits, relying on assessments that found only mild impairments and suggested symptom exaggeration.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating psychiatrist and found the applicant suffered a marked impairment in adaptation, qualifying as a catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator awarded ongoing income replacement benefits, finding the applicant completely unable to engage in suitable employment, as well as attendant care, housekeeping benefits, and the cost of a chronic pain assessment.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits and housekeeping benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, relying on surveillance evidence showing the applicant working at her family's dry cleaning business and performing physical tasks without apparent difficulty.

The arbitrator found the applicant and her husband lacked credibility, noting numerous contradictions in their testimony.

The arbitrator preferred the medical evidence of the insurer's experts, who concluded the applicant could perform her pre-accident work and housekeeping tasks, over the applicant's experts, who were unaware she had returned to work.

The application for benefits, interest, and a special award was dismissed.