Dr. Hall

During a civil jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs sought to exclude the testimony of a defence neuropsychologist regarding neuropsychological testing and symptom validity assessment.

The court applied the admissibility framework for expert evidence from R. v. Mohan and the two‑step reliability analysis from R. v. Abbey.

While the expert’s methodology raised concerns regarding cultural and linguistic validity of standardized tests and the absence of normative data for the plaintiff’s background, the court concluded the opinion met the threshold reliability for admissibility.

To preserve fairness and avoid improper commentary on credibility, the court permitted the expert to testify on testing methodology, behavioural observations, and differential diagnosis but prohibited opinions implying deceit, malingering, or general credibility.

The evidence was therefore admitted subject to strict limits and jury instructions.

The applicant was injured when she slipped and fell on a transit bus.

She received statutory accident benefits, but the insurer terminated her weekly income benefits after she returned to work.

The applicant later stopped working due to another workplace incident and sought reinstatement of her weekly income benefits, as well as medication and travel expenses.

The arbitrator found insufficient medical evidence connecting her ongoing inability to work to the bus accident, relying on medical reports indicating her injuries should not prevent her from performing her normal activities.

The claims for weekly income benefits and medical expenses were dismissed, though the applicant was awarded her hearing expenses.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the respondent terminated them.

An arbitrator found that while the appellant suffered from accident-related pain, he was not substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a machinist.

The appellant appealed, arguing the arbitrator misapprehended the medical and surveillance evidence, misapplied the test under section 12 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and that the hearing was unfair because he was unrepresented.

The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence, the correct legal test was applied, and the arbitration process was fair.

The applicant, a passenger on a TTC bus involved in a collision, sought statutory accident benefits including weekly benefits, housekeeping expenses, and a special award.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence unreliable and fraught with misrepresentations, preferring the insurer's medical evidence that the applicant was malingering and did not suffer from chronic pain syndrome or a disabling disc injury.

The claims for benefits were dismissed.

Finding the arbitration to be an abuse of process due to the applicant's deliberate misrepresentations, the arbitrator ordered the applicant to pay $1,000 in expenses to the insurer.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them.

He applied for arbitration seeking ongoing weekly income benefits and supplementary medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was reasonably suited for teaching and thus not entitled to ongoing income benefits under section 12(5)(b), except for a six-month recovery period following back surgery.

The arbitrator also awarded limited case management services and a six-month diet program, but denied a special award, finding the insurer had not unreasonably withheld payments.