Dr. Geoffrey French

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle.

The insurer paid income replacement benefits for 104 weeks but terminated them, arguing the applicant did not meet the more stringent test of complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The arbitrator found the applicant, who was functionally illiterate in English and had a history of heavy physical labour, suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments caused by the accident.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's expert evidence that the applicant was malingering, finding instead that he was completely disabled from working.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits.

However, his claim for a multidisciplinary pain management program was dismissed as he failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary, given a previous similar program had not yielded further recovery.

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 received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them, claiming she could return to her pre-accident work as a piecework sewing machine operator.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's permanent hand injury prevented her from performing the rapid, repetitive movements required for her job, entitling her to ongoing benefits.

The arbitrator also determined that the applicant was an employee rather than an independent contractor, calculating her benefits based on a weekly salary of $275.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's initial termination was based on reasonable medical evidence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them based on an orthopaedic assessment.

The applicant sought continued benefits under section 7 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, claiming a lower back injury prevented him from working.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's lower back problems were a recurrence of a pre-existing condition and not caused by the accident, dismissing the section 7 claim.

However, the arbitrator found that the insurer was required to pay benefits under section 64 of the Schedule from the date the applicant provided a signed medical release form until the date he was notified of the negative Designated Assessment Centre report.