Dr. Howard Weinberg

The appellant, a passenger injured in a motor vehicle collision, appealed a trial judgment that resulted in a nil award after the jury verdict of $50,000 in non-pecuniary damages was reduced by a statutory deductible and an advance payment made by the defendants.

The appellant challenged the trial judge's qualification of expert witnesses, aspects of the jury charge, and the costs award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on the merits and the costs appeal, finding that the trial judge properly admitted non-party expert evidence, provided a balanced jury charge, and correctly applied the costs rules given the nil judgment.

The Applicant sought payment for three chiropractic treatment plans and non-earner benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found the Applicant lacked credibility due to inconsistent statements about his employment and failure to disclose a prior 2013 accident with similar injuries.

The Tribunal accepted the insurer's independent medical examinations, concluding the Applicant failed to prove his impairments were directly caused by the 2015 accident or that he met the test for non-earner benefits.

The appeal was dismissed entirely.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement and housekeeping benefits, which the insurer terminated.

The arbitrator found that the accident materially contributed to the applicant's development of chronic pain syndrome, rendering her completely unable to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited.

The arbitrator awarded ongoing income replacement benefits and a closed period of housekeeping benefits, along with interest.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, as the insurer's actions, while mistaken, were not unreasonable given the complex medical history.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits, medical benefits for physiotherapy and massage therapy, and the cost of various assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding the applicant entirely lacking in credibility due to numerous contradictions regarding his pre-accident health, employment duties, living arrangements, and the accident itself.

Surveillance evidence and independent medical examinations demonstrated significant symptom magnification and inconsistent effort.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his employment tasks and that the claimed medical treatments and assessments were not reasonable or necessary.