Dr. Frank Lipson

Following a six-day trial for a motor vehicle accident, the jury awarded the plaintiff $30,000 in general damages.

The defendants brought a threshold motion under the Insurance Act, arguing the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the statutory exception for non-pecuniary damages.

The court analyzed the plaintiff's claim of chronic upper back pain and its impact on his employment as an RCMP officer, specifically his ability to earn overtime and train for the Emergency Response Team.

The court found that while the impairment was permanent, it did not substantially interfere with his regular employment, career training, or usual activities of daily living.

The defendants' motion was granted, and the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages was dismissed.

Following an eleven-day jury trial where the jury awarded no damages, the defendant brought a motion for a declaration that the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss and health care expenses was barred by the threshold under the Insurance Act.

The plaintiff claimed to suffer from soft tissue injuries, headaches, and neck pain following a minor rear-end collision.

The court found that the plaintiff's impairments did not substantially interfere with her volunteer activities or usual activities of daily living, and preferred the medical evidence indicating no permanent impairment caused by the collision.

The motion was granted, barring the plaintiff's claims.

The defendant moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a neuropsychological defence medical examination in a motor vehicle accident action.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant required leave under Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure because the matter had already been certified for trial.

The court granted leave, finding that defence counsel’s mistaken understanding regarding the plaintiff’s willingness to attend the examination constituted a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances.

Applying the principles governing additional defence medical examinations, the court held that the examination was necessary to allow the defence physiatrist to finalize his opinion regarding the cause of the plaintiff’s cognitive impairments, particularly in light of a prior head injury and the plaintiff’s expert report.

The motion was granted and the plaintiff was ordered to attend the examination.

The plaintiffs appealed a Divisional Court order compelling the plaintiff to attend two defence medical examinations.

The defendant had previously brought a motion to adjourn the trial to conduct defence medicals, which was dismissed.

The defendant subsequently brought a second motion to compel attendance at rescheduled medicals prior to trial, which was also dismissed by the motion judge but allowed on appeal to the Divisional Court.

The Court of Appeal allowed the plaintiffs' appeal, holding that the second motion was substantially the same as the first, and the defendant was precluded by issue estoppel from relitigating the matter.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed housekeeping benefits, acupuncture treatment, and a special award.

The arbitrator found the applicant was entitled to $3,676 for housekeeping expenses, as she suffered a substantial inability to perform her household tasks for a period following the accident.

The claim for further acupuncture treatment was denied because the medical evidence emphasized regular exercise rather than passive therapies.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's denial of benefits was supported by an expert opinion and was not unreasonable.

AXA Insurance Company appealed an arbitration order awarding Mario Rocca income replacement benefits beyond the 104-week mark and a $10,000 special award.

Rocca cross-appealed the calculation of his benefits regarding commission income.

The Director's Delegate found that despite the arbitrator's adverse credibility findings against Rocca, there was sufficient objective medical evidence, including an MRI showing a large disc herniation, to support the conclusion that he was disabled from the physical aspects of his pre-accident job.

The Director's Delegate also upheld the special award, finding the insurer unreasonably reduced benefits to the minimum level without an objective basis.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits after the insurer terminated them at the 104-week mark.

The insurer argued the applicant was not substantially disabled and had misrepresented his pre-accident income and post-accident earnings.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence regarding his symptoms and finances to be highly unreliable, noting deliberate misrepresentations.

However, objective medical evidence of a large disc herniation, materially related to the accident, established that he was physically incapable of returning to the essential duties of his pre-accident employment.

The arbitrator ordered ongoing income replacement benefits and granted a $10,000 special award because the insurer had unreasonably reduced benefits earlier in the claim based solely on the applicant's receipt of unemployment insurance.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits and supplementary medical benefits for prescriptions after the insurer terminated them.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was not physically disabled from returning to her pre-accident employment as a hairstyling instructor.

However, the arbitrator concluded that the applicant suffered from accident-related panic attacks that substantially disabled her from working during an acute phase between December 1996 and August 1997.

Income replacement benefits were awarded for this limited period.

The arbitrator also awarded the cost of most claimed prescriptions, finding them reasonable and necessary for treating her accident-related psychological condition.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them, arguing she was no longer disabled.

The applicant, who had significant pre-existing conditions including rheumatoid arthritis and degenerative disc disease, claimed the accident materially contributed to her ongoing inability to perform her essential tasks as a building superintendent.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's medical examinations, finding them flawed and incomplete, and preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating physicians.

The arbitrator concluded the accident significantly contributed to her disability and ordered the insurer to pay ongoing weekly income replacement benefits, interest, and expenses.