Dr. Finestone

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care, physiotherapy, psychological services, occupational therapy, and medication costs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's chronic pain and major depressive disorders were pre-existing conditions and not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's psychiatric expert evidence because it relied on unreliable self-reporting that contradicted pre-accident medical records showing ongoing opioid and antidepressant use.

In a post-hearing motion, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay expert witness fees under Tariff A of the Rules of Civil Procedure to three insurer examination assessors whom the applicant had summoned to testify.

The applicant sought interest on overdue income replacement benefits (IRBs), a rehabilitation benefit for an orthopedic mattress, and a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to interest on the IRBs because the respondent conceded the benefits were payable, making them overdue under s. 51 of the Schedule.

The claim for the orthopedic mattress was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary, with both parties' physiatrists indicating it would not significantly assist with pain management.

The claims for costs and a special award were also dismissed as there was no evidence of bad faith or unreasonable delay by the respondent.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a negligence action arising from an alleged gas leak and installation of a replacement boiler in a condominium unit.

The plaintiff alleged exposure to toxic fumes and off‑gassing from carpeting that caused multiple respiratory and neurological conditions.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide admissible expert evidence establishing causation between the defendants’ conduct and the alleged health injuries.

Medical reports relied upon were not in admissible affidavit form and were largely based on the plaintiff’s self‑reports.

The absence of air quality testing or expert engineering evidence linking the installation or maintenance of the boilers to the alleged injuries was fatal to the claim.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a further independent medical examination by a physiatrist and permitting the resulting expert report to be served after the pre-trial conference.

The plaintiff opposed the request on the basis that it constituted a second medical examination and argued the defendants had not established its necessity.

The court held that the plaintiff’s physiatrist report introduced issues concerning mood, anxiety, and cognitive symptoms that were outside the expertise of the defendants’ orthopaedic surgeon who had previously examined the plaintiff.

Given the differing medical specialties and the need to respond to new issues raised in the plaintiff’s expert evidence, the court exercised its discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to order the additional examination.

The plaintiff was ordered to attend the defendants’ physiatrist examination and the expert report was permitted to be served after the pre-trial.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a mental or behavioural disorder.

The insurer's assessors concluded she had only a moderate impairment, while her own assessors found a marked impairment in the area of adaptation.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's inability to work was too narrow a basis for finding a marked impairment in adaptation.

Considering her overall ability to cope with pain and manage daily activities, the arbitrator concluded the applicant had only a moderate impairment in all four areas of function and therefore did not meet the definition of catastrophic impairment.

The applicant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion for interim expenses pending the completion of his arbitration hearing for statutory accident benefits.

The arbitrator applied the Bernicky criteria, finding that the applicant raised a bona fide issue, the expenses sought were reasonable and necessary, and the applicant was unable to carry the expenses of the arbitration as he was on social assistance.

The insurer was ordered to pay $8,503.20 in interim expenses.