Mr. Ian Wollach

In the second phase (damages) of a bifurcated trial concerning institutional abuse at the Oak Ridge mental health facility, the defendants moved to exclude three expert reports tendered by the plaintiffs.

The court found that the reports of the two psychiatrists and one psychologist improperly repeated and elaborated on causation evidence that had already been adjudicated in the first phase of the trial.

The court ruled the reports inadmissible under the Mohan test as they were unnecessary and prejudicial, but granted the plaintiffs leave to submit revised reports focused strictly on the quantification of damages and economic loss.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a 2010 motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury trial, the trial judge ruled on the questions to be put to the jury and the defendants' threshold motion.

The judge declined to put questions on future health care costs and loss of competitive advantage to the jury due to insufficient evidence and risk of double recovery.

On the threshold motion, the judge held that a psychologist does not qualify as a 'physician' under s. 4.3 of O. Reg. 461/96.

Furthermore, the judge found that the plaintiff failed to prove she sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function, noting her successful return to school and employment.

The defendants' motion to dismiss the claim for non-pecuniary damages was granted.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and Housekeeping and Home Maintenance Benefits from the Insurer.

The Insurer denied the claims.

At arbitration, the Applicant claimed he was self-employed prior to the accident and suffered a substantial inability to work and perform housekeeping tasks.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant's testimony lacked credibility and that he failed to provide sufficient evidence of pre-accident business income, as his tax returns showed only passive investment income.

Furthermore, medical evidence did not establish that his injuries were caused by the accident rather than extensive pre-existing conditions.

The Arbitrator dismissed the claims for IRBs, housekeeping benefits, and interest, finding the Applicant failed to meet his burden of proof.

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

The insurer terminated his income replacement and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's termination of the income replacement benefit was fatally flawed because it relied on a functional abilities evaluation that had not actually been conducted at the time of termination.

The applicant was awarded pre-104 week income replacement benefits, as his chronic pain substantially disabled him from performing the essential tasks of his employment, though he did not meet the post-104 week test of complete inability to engage in any suitable employment.

The arbitrator also awarded housekeeping and home maintenance benefits, the cost of an in-home assessment, and a special award of $2,000 against the insurer for unreasonably relying on the flawed termination notice.