Dr. Gow

The plaintiff, Moira Caron, sued for damages following a slip and fall in her workplace kitchenette.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendants, as occupiers, met their positive duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act by maintaining a reasonable system of cleaning, inspection, and call service.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to prove that her ongoing complaints and inability to return to work after January 2011 were caused by the slip and fall incident, attributing them instead to a pre-existing anxiety disorder.

The corporate defendants brought a motion for the production of pre-accident clinical counselling notes and for a further independent psychiatric examination of the plaintiff, two weeks before the scheduled trial of a motor vehicle accident claim.

The court granted the production of the clinical notes, finding them highly relevant to the co-plaintiff's Family Law Act claim for loss of care, guidance, and companionship.

However, the court dismissed the request for a further psychiatric examination, ruling it unreasonable and procedurally unfair to require the plaintiff to undergo another examination on the eve of trial without evidence of a significant change in her condition.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2003 and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment.

He had previously suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in a 1995 accident.

The applicant argued that he had significantly recovered from the 1995 accident prior to 2003, and that the 2003 accident caused a substantial deterioration in his condition.

The arbitrator found that the medical evidence did not support a significant pre-accident recovery, nor did it establish that the applicant sustained a new traumatic brain injury in the 2003 accident.

Applying the material contribution test, the arbitrator concluded that the 2003 accident did not cause or materially contribute to the applicant's current condition.

The applications for catastrophic impairment designation, non-earner benefits, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits were dismissed.

The applicant, a self-employed pedorthist, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits.

The insurer disputed her entitlement to income replacement benefits, arguing she was not substantially disabled and disputing the calculation of her post-accident business expenses.

The arbitrator found the applicant suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and was substantially disabled until October 1995.

The arbitrator allowed most of the applicant's post-accident business expenses, finding they were reasonably incurred to prevent a loss of revenue in her expanded business, but denied her claim for loss of profits.

The arbitrator also awarded various medical and rehabilitation benefits, including psychological counselling and a treadmill.

A special award of 35% was imposed against the insurer for unreasonably delaying and withholding benefits, particularly psychological counselling, despite recommendations from multiple assessors.