Dr. Henderson

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including costs for a catastrophic impairment assessment, chiropractic treatment plans, and a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary, noting the minor nature of the physical injuries, the applicant's return to work and daily activities, and the unreliability of the applicant's medical reports.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, with no interest or special award payable.

The applicant father brought a motion to vary a temporary parenting schedule for the parties' child, following the release of a Section 30 assessment report.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to maintain the current schedule or implement Phase 1 of the assessor's recommendations.

The court found compelling reasons to change the temporary order, noting the high conflict between the parties and the stress caused by transitions.

Applying the maximum contact principle, the court ordered a 2-2-3 equal parenting schedule and set out detailed terms for transitions, communication, and holidays.

The applicant sought dispute resolution at the Licence Appeal Tribunal after the respondent insurer denied four treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator denied the request for an orthopaedic assessment, finding it was based solely on self-reported injuries without objective medical evidence.

Two chiropractic treatment plans were approved as reasonable and necessary because they included appropriate active and passive modalities consistent with the applicant's injuries.

A third chiropractic plan was denied due to a lack of substantive benefit and failure to address other barriers to recovery.

The applicant's claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed, but interest was awarded on the approved benefits.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order finding her nine-year-old child in need of protection and granting Crown wardship with access.

The child had been apprehended five times due to the mother's serious mental health decompensations and lack of a viable safety plan.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's finding that the predictable interruptions in care caused a risk of emotional harm to the child.

Finding no reviewable errors of fact or law, the court dismissed the appeal.