Dr. Gilman

The defendants brought an omnibus motion seeking to set aside an order restoring the action to the trial list, an order for trial together with a related action, production of documents, and leave for further examinations for discovery.

The court set aside the prior restoration order but granted a fresh order restoring the action.

It dismissed the request for trial together, ordered further production, and granted leave for additional examination for discovery regarding a second motor vehicle accident.

The court also allowed police productions from the 2014 action to be used in the 2020 action.

Costs were awarded to the moving defendants.

The applicant insurer sought judicial review of a FSCO Director's Delegate's decision upholding an arbitrator's award of non-earner benefits to the respondent, who was struck by a bus.

The insurer argued the arbitrator failed to apply the 'continuously prevents' aspect of the test for non-earner benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Director's Delegate reasonably concluded the arbitrator had addressed the test in light of the evidence and the specific arguments raised by the parties at the arbitration.

During an in-person hearing regarding a catastrophic impairment claim, the applicant sought to admit the full neuropsychological report of Dr. Gilman, which had not been fully disclosed prior to the hearing.

The respondent objected on the basis of late disclosure and prejudice.

The Tribunal allowed the full report to be admitted, finding that its relevance and probative value outweighed any prejudice to the respondent.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to provide the complete report to the respondent's expert and directed a case conference to address any necessary rebuttal reports.

The applicant was injured as a pedestrian when struck by a transit bus, sustaining orthopaedic injuries and a mild traumatic brain injury.

She applied for non-earner benefits, medical benefits, and the cost of assessments, which the insurer denied.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's physical injuries, combined with resulting chronic pain, depression, and cognitive deficits, continuously prevented her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

The arbitrator awarded the non-earner benefits, the disputed medical benefits, and the costs of the neuropsychological assessments, but denied the applicant's request for a special award.

The applicant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder.

The insurer argued that her marked impairment was a manifestation of malingering or factitious disorder, pointing to an initial period of improvement followed by deterioration.

The arbitrator reviewed extensive medical and lay evidence, finding that the applicant's current presentation of severe depression, anxiety, and pain focus was a direct result of the accident.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's allegations of malingering, noting the lack of pre-existing conditions and the consistency of the applicant's presentation over time.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant suffered a catastrophic impairment.