Dr. Felix Yaroshevsky

The offender pleaded guilty to second degree murder of his former domestic partner.

The victim was killed in her home in a brutal attack involving multiple stab wounds and near-decapitation.

The offender had a documented history of violence and threats toward the victim, breached court-ordered no-contact conditions, and committed the murder while the victim's young child was present in the home.

The court imposed a life sentence with parole ineligibility of 18 years, reduced from 20 years due to Charter violations arising from the offender's mistreatment during an Institutional Crisis Intervention Team deployment at Maplehurst Correctional Centre.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit (NEB) following a motor vehicle accident, which the respondent insurer denied.

The applicant argued the denial notice was deficient and that she met the disability test based on psychological assessments.

The Tribunal found the denial notice compliant as it clearly referenced the independent medical assessors' conclusions.

Relying on the insurer's psychological assessment, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to perform personal care, household chores, and caregiving duties.

The application for the NEB, an award, and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 (55% whole person impairment).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal reviewed competing medical assessments and preferred the respondent's experts, finding the applicant's combined physical and psychological impairments resulted in a 26% whole person impairment, falling short of the 55% threshold.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for a functional abilities evaluation, finding it was not reasonable and necessary, and consequently denied claims for interest and a special award.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a 2018 motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to a physiotherapy treatment plan, an award, and interest.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove she met the criteria for catastrophic impairment under Criteria 6 (physical), 7 (combined physical and psychological), or 8 (mental/behavioural).

The adjudicator rejected the applicant's expert evidence, finding it inconsistent with the AMA Guides and unsupported by objective medical evidence.

The claim for the physiotherapy treatment plan was also dismissed as the applicant failed to include the plan in evidence or prove it was reasonable and necessary.

Consequently, the claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she suffered a catastrophic impairment under Criteria 7 and 8 of the Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a whole person impairment of at least 55 per cent, as the physical and psychological impairment ratings provided by her assessors were largely unsubstantiated by contemporaneous medical evidence.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to prove marked impairment in at least three areas of function due to a mental or behavioural disorder resulting from the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for various treatment plans, including chiropractic services, a brain SPECT scan, medical services, and physiotherapy, following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer's examination over the applicant's medical reports, noting the lack of physical examinations or detailed explanations of rehabilitative benefits in the applicant's evidence.

Furthermore, the treatment plans themselves were not entered into evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding because he failed to attend a scheduled insurer's examination (IE).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his non-attendance, thereby barring the appeal under s. 55(1)2 of the Schedule.

Although not required to decide the substantive issue, the Tribunal also concluded that the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving his physical and psychological injuries fell outside the MIG, preferring the insurer's expert evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits, including income replacement and housekeeping expenses, arguing she could no longer work as a live-in housekeeper.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant sustained genuine injuries, including vertigo and cervicogenic pain, she exaggerated her limitations and was only disabled from working until her employer returned from Florida on February 21, 1996.

Income replacement benefits were awarded up to that date, along with a 50% special award because the insurer unreasonably withheld payment despite having uncontradicted medical evidence of disability for that initial period.

Claims for ongoing income replacement, housekeeping, and a case manager were dismissed.