Dr. Gladstone

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired.

She argued the adjudicator erred in law by failing to consider the Whole Person Impairment (WPI) ratings for medication and her right wrist provided by an orthopedic surgeon.

The adjudicator acknowledged the error of omitting these ratings.

However, after recalculating the impairment using the correct method of combining Upper Extremity Impairment values, the adjudicator determined the applicant's total WPI was 49%.

As this remained below the 55% threshold required for catastrophic impairment, the error would not have changed the result, and the request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

She had a rare, pre-existing brainstem cavernoma that was symptomatic prior to the accident.

The insurer argued the post-accident deterioration was the natural progression of her condition.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not suffer pre-accident loss of consciousness and accepted the applicant's expert evidence that the torsional force of the collision likely caused increased bleeding in the cavernoma.

The arbitrator concluded that the accident materially contributed to the impairment, tipping the balance from a mild impairment to a life-threatening condition.

In a personal injury action arising from a helicopter crash, the defendants brought several pre‑trial discovery and procedural motions shortly before trial.

The court ordered production of corporate income tax records relating to the plaintiff’s production company, confirmation from the plaintiff’s accountant regarding the production of corporate records, authorization for defence counsel to obtain contractual records relating to the plaintiff’s involvement with a film production, and permitted questioning regarding the plaintiff’s OHIP records.

However, the court refused the defendants’ request for a late independent medical examination by a neurologist, finding the request was not based on new issues and would likely delay the scheduled trial.

Costs submissions were permitted if the parties could not agree.