Dr. Mark Korman

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits and hearing aids following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was statute-barred from claiming attendant care benefits because she failed to dispute the insurer's denial within the two-year limitation period, and the justice of the case did not warrant an extension.

On the issue of catastrophic impairment, the Tribunal applied the AMA Guides to assess the applicant's physical and psychological impairments, ultimately finding a combined Whole Person Impairment (WPI) of 56%, which exceeds the 55% threshold under Criterion 7.

The Tribunal denied the claim for hearing aids because the applicant incurred the expense without first submitting a treatment plan, contrary to section 38(2) of the Schedule.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed as the insurer did not unreasonably withhold or delay benefits.

The plaintiff sought leave, after the action had been set down for trial, to bring motions to disqualify a defence medical expert for alleged conflict and to remove defence counsel for alleged improper disclosure.

Applying the post-set-down leave test, the court held there was no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances and no manifest injustice warranting further interlocutory motions.

The court found the moving party knew or ought to have known of the alleged conflict before consenting to the examination, and did not raise the issue in a timely manner.

The court further held the high threshold for removal of counsel was not met on the evidentiary record.

Leave to bring both proposed motions was denied.

The plaintiff, Kathleen MacNeill, sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained after ingesting a deliming agent in coffee served at a McDonald’s drive-thru.

The court found that while the incident was unsettling, the evidence did not establish that the plaintiff suffered any serious or permanent injury causally related to the incident.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s claims for general, income, and future care damages, awarding only $5,000 for temporary pain and inconvenience.

The decision turned on findings of credibility, causation, and the weight of expert and lay evidence.