Dr. Elaine McKinnon

The infant plaintiff suffered a severe and permanent brachial plexus injury during birth after encountering shoulder dystocia.

The plaintiffs brought a medical negligence action against the delivering obstetrician, alleging he applied excessive downward traction.

The defendant argued the injury was caused by maternal propulsive forces.

The court found that the defendant breached the standard of care by applying more than gentle downward traction, which caused the injury.

The court awarded $811,564 in total damages, including non-pecuniary damages, future care costs, future loss of income, and Family Law Act damages for the family.

The applicant sought a special award under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act, alleging that the insurer unreasonably denied two occupational therapy treatment plans.

In a previous hearing, an arbitrator found the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary but denied the special award.

On appeal, the special award issue was returned for redetermination.

The arbitrator found that the insurer did not act unreasonably in relying on its own assessors' reports to deny the benefits.

The insurer's reliance on the reports of its occupational therapist and psychologist was not immoderate or inflexible, especially given gaps in the applicant's medical evidence and questions regarding causation.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act seeking an order requiring the minor plaintiff to attend a psychological assessment by a defence expert following a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff alleged traumatic brain injury and psychological impairments.

The plaintiffs argued the request amounted to an impermissible second defence medical examination and alleged concerns regarding the proposed expert’s impartiality.

The court held that further medical examinations may be ordered where necessary for trial fairness and where the proposed assessment involves different expertise from prior examinations.

Considering the plaintiff’s extensive expert evidence and the importance of expert testimony for a young child’s injuries, the court found the further assessment justified.

The court ordered the minor plaintiff to attend the psychological assessment and required the child’s mother to attend and participate in the interview.

The plaintiffs in a motor vehicle personal injury action involving a child with an alleged brain injury sought leave under s. 12 of the Evidence Act to call more than three expert witnesses at trial.

The court considered factors governing leave to call additional experts, including necessity, duplication of evidence, fairness between parties, and proportionality.

While acknowledging the complexity of the medical issues and future care claims, the court emphasized the trial judge’s gatekeeping role and the need to avoid unnecessary or repetitive expert testimony.

Leave was granted for several experts with distinct specialties but denied for others whose proposed evidence lacked a compliant Rule 53 report or would duplicate testimony from other experts.

The court limited the number of occupational therapists who could testify and refused permission for certain proposed witnesses whose opinions were unnecessary or procedurally deficient.

The applicant, a minor who sustained a catastrophic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits for private school tuition and rehabilitation support worker services.

The insurer denied the claims based on its own medical examinations.

The arbitrator found the insurer's denials unreasonable, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating team that the services were necessary for his social reintegration and cognitive development.

The arbitrator awarded the claimed benefits, interest, and a $28,000 special award against the insurer for unreasonably withholding payments.

The applicant, who suffered a moderate brain injury in a pedestrian motor vehicle collision, sought interim attendant care benefits after the insurer terminated them.

The insurer relied on a Designated Assessment Centre (DAC) report suggesting the applicant's need for supervision pre-dated the accident due to ADHD.

The arbitrator found significant flaws in the DAC report, including procedural irregularities and a failure to consider whether the accident exacerbated pre-existing vulnerabilities.

Finding that the applicant established a compelling prima facie case for entitlement and urgency due to safety risks, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay interim attendant care benefits pending a full arbitration hearing.