Dr. French

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims for general damages, a catastrophic impairment designation, and income replacement benefits arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The court granted summary judgment dismissing the claims for general damages and catastrophic impairment, finding no evidence to support the bad faith claim and no expert evidence establishing that the plaintiff met the statutory definition of catastrophic impairment.

However, the court dismissed the motion regarding income replacement benefits, finding that conflicting medical evidence about whether the plaintiff's seizure disorder and cognitive decline were caused by the accident or a pre-existing condition created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 105(4) of the Courts of Justice Act seeking an order compelling the plaintiff to attend a further independent medical examination by a psychologist for a psycho‑vocational assessment shortly before trial.

The defendant argued the examination was necessary to respond to the plaintiff’s psychological expert report asserting that the plaintiff was totally disabled from employment following a motor vehicle accident.

The court held that the defendant had not demonstrated that the further examination was necessary to ensure a fair trial, noting the plaintiff had already undergone several defence examinations and that the defendant could obtain opinion evidence through a records review.

The court further found the motion was brought too late, only weeks before trial, and would likely prejudice the plaintiff by delaying the scheduled trial.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them based on medical assessments indicating he could return to his pre-accident employment as a machine operator.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's assessments relied on a flawed ergonomic report that incorrectly classified the applicant's job as sedentary to light.

The arbitrator accepted the applicant's evidence that his job required significant standing, bending, and lifting, which he could no longer perform for a full shift due to ongoing knee pain and swelling.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits and supplementary medical benefits for physiotherapy, while the insurer's claims for repayment and a special award were dismissed.