Dr. Howard Waiser

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit and several treatment plans for physical and psychological rehabilitation and assessments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer's examination assessors, who concluded the applicant sustained minor soft tissue injuries and a temporary adjustment disorder, over the applicant's evidence.

All disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her psychological injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, relying on an insurer's psychological examination which concluded her emotional distress was subclinical.

As the applicant was not removed from the MIG and the limits were exhausted, her claim for a psychological assessment was denied.

Claims for an award and the respondent's request for costs were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit (NEB) and several treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to perform most of her pre-accident activities, albeit with some pain and modifications.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's assessors over the applicant's assessors, noting the latter failed to review medical records or diagnostic imaging.

The Tribunal also found the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, and the insurer's denial notices were compliant with the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans for chiropractic services, a psychological assessment, and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the policy limits were exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her chronic pain and psychological impairments were accident-related or severe enough to warrant removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claims for treatment plans, a section 10 award, and interest were dismissed.

The parties separated and initially agreed to a graduated shared parenting schedule.

Following an incident where the mother was charged with assaulting one of the children (charges later withdrawn), the father sought sole decision-making and primary residence.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) recommended sole custody to the father with limited parenting time for the mother.

The court rejected the OCL's recommendations, finding the investigation flawed and the father's unilateral actions concerning.

The court ordered a week-on/week-off shared parenting schedule and a parallel parenting regime, granting the mother final decision-making authority over health and the father final decision-making authority over education.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied several treatment plans for chiropractic services, psychological treatment, and a functional cognitive assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found that three of the four chiropractic treatment plans and the psychological treatment plan were reasonable and necessary, ordering the insurer to pay them with interest.

However, the Tribunal denied the fourth chiropractic plan as it was duplicative and lacked a home exercise progression, and denied the cognitive assessment due to a lack of evidence of significant cognitive impairment.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), her psychological impairments (Major Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder) took her outside the MIG.

However, the claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove the expenses were 'incurred' under section 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The evidence regarding care provided by family members was vague, lacked corroboration, and failed to establish economic loss or that the care was provided in the course of ordinary employment.

A father sought access to his six‑year‑old child after nearly five years of minimal or no contact and in circumstances where the mother failed to participate in the litigation and repeatedly frustrated prior access arrangements.

Evidence included a psychological assessment recommending only supervised contact due to concerns about the father’s emotional stability, parenting insight, and past substance abuse.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court emphasized the child’s right to know both parents while balancing safety concerns.

The court found that completely denying access would be inappropriate despite the lengthy absence of contact.

Transitional supervised access through a counselling service was ordered, with further court review to monitor progress.

A child protection case in which the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a declaration that a child (W.R.) was in need of protection and an order making the child a Crown ward for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent parents opposed the motion and presented alternative plans for the child's care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted the Society's motion, making the child a Crown ward.

The court declined to grant access to the parents, finding that they had not met the statutory test for access to a Crown ward.

The applicant, who suffered from secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, was injured in a motor vehicle accident when she was knocked to the ground by a reversing truck.

She applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming the accident accelerated her deterioration and caused a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The arbitrator found that while the accident caused a short-term exacerbation of her symptoms, it did not materially contribute to her long-term impairments or continuously prevent her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

Claims for non-earner benefits and assistive devices were dismissed, but the cost of two assessments was awarded as they were reasonably incurred.