Dr. Gordon

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a pre-existing condition and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish that her pre-existing degenerative disc disease and prior accident injuries precluded her recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain under the AMA Guides, noting her return to full-time employment and lack of dependence on pain medication.

The application for benefits was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs due to the applicant's late submissions was denied.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed entitlement to a $3,281.98 chiropractic treatment plan.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide medical documentation to support removal from the MIG or to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary.

Relying on the respondent's insurer's examination report, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were minor and dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Plaintiff, Patrick Harbord, brought an action for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against Pierre Dupont, a podiatrist.

The Defendants, Pierre Dupont and Dupont Chiropody Professional Corporation, did not attend trial, and their pleadings were struck.

The action against Dupont Chiropody Professional Corporation was dismissed.

The Court found Pierre Dupont negligent in his treatment of the Plaintiff's right foot, failing to meet the standard of care by recommending and performing unnecessary stent surgeries without first attempting conservative treatments and without providing properly informed consent.

The Plaintiff suffered a permanent, significant disability to his right foot.

The Court awarded the Plaintiff $140,000 in general non-pecuniary damages, $76,000 for loss of income/competitive advantage, $5,465.96 for a subrogated claim, $8,544.10 for repayment of surgical services, $420 for orthotic expenses, $1,260 for future orthotic expenses, and $80,795.91 in substantial indemnity costs, plus pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Bell Canada appealed a taxation order confirming costs awarded by the CRTC to public interest interveners in a rate hearing.

Bell argued that because the interveners received government funding or were represented by retained counsel, they did not actually incur expenses, and thus the award violated the principle of indemnification.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that while the word 'costs' carries a general connotation of indemnification, the CRTC is not bound by the strict rules applicable in courts and may take a broad view to encourage informed public participation.