Dr. John Clifford

The plaintiffs, a mother and son, were injured in a low-speed motor vehicle accident.

The son claimed the accident caused chronic pain syndrome and depression, disabling him from his employment as a security technician.

The mother claimed the accident caused a left shoulder impairment that prevented her from performing housekeeping and self-care.

The court found both plaintiffs met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act, having sustained permanent serious impairments of important functions.

The court awarded damages for pain and suffering, past and future income loss, future care, and housekeeping/attendant care.

The applicant sought post-104-week Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered whether the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment or self-employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical and vocational assessments, which found the applicant capable of working in alternative occupations such as a retail salesclerk, over the applicant's tort-focused expert reports.

The application was dismissed, as the applicant failed to meet the post-104-week IRB test, and no interest was payable.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff's action was dismissed for failing to meet the statutory threshold, the successful defendant sought over $104,000 in costs plus disbursements.

The plaintiff argued no costs should be awarded due to her impecuniosity and the defendant insurer's alleged failure to attempt settlement under the Insurance Act.

The court found the insurer did not breach its duty to settle by taking a hard-line defensible position.

However, considering the plaintiff's limited financial means and the modest complexity of the case, the court reduced the defendant's costs and fixed them at $40,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiffs in two separate personal injury actions appealed interlocutory orders requiring them to undergo examinations by non-medical practitioners (a vocational assessor and a chiropractor).

The plaintiffs argued that section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act constitutes a complete code for such examinations, precluding orders for non-medical practitioners.

The Divisional Court held that section 105 does not completely occupy the field and that a Superior Court judge has inherent jurisdiction to order an examination by a non-medical practitioner where necessary to ensure trial fairness and justice.

Applying this test, the court dismissed the appeal in the Ziebenhaus action, finding the vocational assessment was necessary to meet the plaintiff's case.

However, the court allowed the appeal in the Jack action, finding the defendants failed to demonstrate that the functional abilities evaluation was necessary.

The applicant, a taxi driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a special award.

The insurer terminated benefits based on a DAC assessment.

At the hearing, the insurer conceded entitlement, leaving the quantum of IRBs and the special award in dispute.

The arbitrator determined the applicant's gross annual income by including employer-paid EI premiums and a 5.5% allowance for tips, but rejected the applicant's claim for unrecorded cash fares due to a lack of corroborating documentation.

The claim for a special award was dismissed, as the insurer reasonably relied on its medical experts in maintaining its denial until the hearing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed ongoing caregiver benefits, housekeeping expenses, psychological counselling, and a special award after the insurer terminated her benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform caregiver tasks due to physical and psychological impairments until her condition stabilized in January 1999, awarding caregiver benefits for that period.

The arbitrator also awarded a nominal amount for housekeeping expenses and an $8,000 special award, finding the insurer unreasonably terminated psychological counselling and vocational retraining benefits without a reasonable basis.

The insurer appealed an arbitration decision that found the insured met the post-156 week test for weekly income benefits and ordered the insurer to pay ongoing benefits and certain medical and rehabilitation accounts.

The insurer argued the arbitrator failed to properly analyze surveillance evidence and conflicting medical opinions regarding the insured's pain-based limitations.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the arbitrator provided an adequate explanation for her conclusions, properly considered the surveillance evidence, and reasonably determined that the disputed accounts were necessary expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for 156 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant did not meet the test for continued entitlement.

The applicant sought reinstatement, claiming inability to work due to chronic pain and fibromyalgia.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's subsequent fall and worsening condition were related to the accident.

Accepting the medical evidence of fibromyalgia, the arbitrator concluded the applicant was unable to perform any suitable job and ordered the reinstatement of weekly income benefits.

The request for a special award was denied as the insurer had not unreasonably withheld payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits, which the insurer terminated after three years.

She applied for arbitration seeking reinstatement of weekly benefits and homemaker services.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant suffered from a significant mobility impairment and chronic pain that justified the reinstatement of 12 hours per week of homemaker services, her disability was not so pervasive as to continuously prevent her from engaging in substantially all of her usual activities.

Therefore, the claim for ongoing weekly benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was awarded her expenses for the arbitration.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for 156 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing she was capable of returning to work.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant suffered from chronic pain and was disabled from full-time work commensurate with her background, she was capable of part-time employment.

The arbitrator ordered the resumption of weekly income benefits but allowed the insurer to deduct 80% of the income available from part-time employment under section 15 of the Schedule.

The applicant was also awarded certain rehabilitation expenses, but her claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

The applicant sought arbitration, arguing that the benefits were terminated prematurely and that she met the post-156 week eligibility test.

The arbitrator held that the 156-week period in section 12(5)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule refers to 156 weeks of disability, meaning the benefits were not terminated prematurely.

Furthermore, the arbitrator found that the applicant was capable of returning to full-time employment with restrictions and had not made a bona fide effort to find suitable employment.

The application for ongoing weekly income benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits for 156 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant no longer met the stricter disability test under section 12(5)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant suffered from chronic back pain and might be disabled from his pre-accident heavy manual job, he failed to prove that his injuries continuously prevented him from engaging in any occupation or employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The application for further weekly income benefits was dismissed, but the insurer was ordered to pay the applicant's arbitration expenses.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly disability benefits until September 28, 1991.

He applied for ongoing weekly benefits, claiming a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks due to chronic pain in his neck, shoulder, and arm.

The arbitrator reviewed medical evidence and surveillance video showing the Applicant performing strenuous physical activities, such as lifting heavy wooden skids, without apparent difficulty.

The arbitrator concluded the Applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform his normal tasks and denied ongoing benefits.

The arbitrator also held that the Applicant's pre-existing permanent workers' compensation pension was not a payment for loss of income and therefore not deductible from no-fault benefits.

The Applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses.