Dr. Ho

The applicant, an elderly pedestrian who was struck by a motor vehicle in a parking lot, applied for statutory accident benefits including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The adjudicator dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies in her self-reporting and relying on insurer's examinations that found no objective impairment preventing her pre-accident activities.

Claims for attendant care and medical benefits were similarly dismissed due to a lack of persuasive medical evidence and inconsistencies in the applicant's submitted treatment plans.

The applicants, two cancer researchers, sought judicial review of two decisions by the respondent hospital network regarding findings of research misconduct.

The first decision upheld a reconsidered sanction suspending their research activities after an earlier court decision remitted the matter.

The second decision permanently closed their laboratory following a second investigation committee's finding of material non-compliance with accepted standards due to image manipulation and falsification in published papers.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the decisions and sanctions reasonable, the reasons adequate, and no reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant mother sought court approval for auto transplantation dental surgery for her daughter Juliana, who had lost three front teeth in a boating accident.

The respondent father opposed the procedure and favored waiting until the child reached maturity to undergo traditional dental implants.

The court found that the mother, as the primary custodial parent who had taken initiative in obtaining professional assistance, had the authority to make this medical decision.

The court approved the auto transplantation procedure, finding it to be a scientifically valid option with comparable success rates to the alternative procedure, and that it was in the best interests of the child.