Dr. Harvey Stancer

The applicant, a pedestrian, was struck by a car and sustained physical injuries and a traumatic brain injury.

He subsequently developed bipolar affective disorder.

The insurer terminated his weekly non-income benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's psychiatric illness was caused by the accident and that he was substantially unable to perform his essential tasks for the period up to 156 weeks post-accident, entitling him to benefits under s. 13(1) of the Schedule.

However, the arbitrator concluded the applicant did not meet the stricter test under s. 13(8) for benefits beyond 156 weeks, as he was not continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of his normal activities.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's termination of benefits was not unreasonable.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits, including weekly income benefits and housekeeping expenses.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant was misrepresenting her symptoms and was capable of working.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic pain syndrome resulting from the accident, which substantially disabled her from performing the essential tasks of her employment in her husband's business until August 15, 1994.

The arbitrator awarded weekly income benefits up to that date, as well as housekeeping expenses, but denied the claim for holiday expenses.

The complainant, a business manager at a car dealership, experienced a drop in sales and severe anxiety due to personal and work-related stressors.

His doctor recommended a brief leave of absence.

Upon his return, the employer refused to reinstate him to his former position, offering him a car sales position instead, which he declined, resulting in his termination.

The Board of Inquiry found that the complainant suffered from an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, constituting a mental handicap under the Human Rights Code.

The employer discriminated against the complainant by failing to objectively assess his ability to perform the essential duties of his position before permanently replacing him.

The Board awarded $2,500 in damages for the lost possibility of returning to his former role.