Dr. Erin Warriner

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to a treatment plan for vestibular physiotherapy.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by applying the incorrect legal test for res judicata.

The Adjudicator agreed, finding that the previous decision relied on an incorrect four-part test rather than the binding three-part test from the Supreme Court of Canada, and failed to properly analyze whether the same issue had been previously decided.

Upon reconsidering the merits, the Adjudicator found the applicant was partially entitled to the treatment plan in the amount of $2,697.28, as the treatment was reasonable and necessary for her accident-related post-concussion symptoms, though costs incurred prior to the plan's submission were excluded under s. 38(2) of the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of treatment plans for psychological, occupational therapy, and physiotherapy services, as well as transportation costs and a claim for an award.

The Tribunal found the psychological, occupational therapy, and physiotherapy plans reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's assessors and treating practitioners over the respondent's section 44 assessors.

However, the Tribunal denied the transportation expenses associated with the occupational therapy and physiotherapy plans, as the applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with the Schedule's transportation expense guidelines.

The claim for an award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was also dismissed due to a lack of submissions.

This was a Rule 7.08 motion for court approval of a $5 million settlement for a minor, Ethan Ajayi, in a medical negligence action.

Unusually, the plaintiffs' counsel did not support the settlement terms but was instructed by the litigation guardian to seek approval.

The court approved the settlement and the associated legal fees, finding it to be in the minor's best interests given the inherent risks of litigation, particularly concerning causation and liability.

The decision also addressed the granting of a partial sealing order to protect solicitor-client privileged information, while declining the request for an in camera hearing, thereby balancing the principle of open courts with the need to preserve fair trial rights.