Dr. John Rutka

The appellant physician performed ear surgeries using a new antiseptic introduced by the hospital, which caused profound hearing loss in two patients.

The hospital settled with the patients and sought contribution and indemnity from the appellant, arguing he was negligent in failing to inquire about the new antiseptic's properties.

The trial judge found the appellant 50% liable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision, finding no evidence that the appellant breached the standard of care or that further inquiries would have revealed the antiseptic's ototoxicity prior to the surgeries.

The hospital's claim was dismissed.

The applicant was struck by a car and claimed statutory accident benefits.

He sought weekly income benefits under section 12 of the Schedule, claiming he was self-employed as a tailor.

The arbitrator found the applicant failed to prove he was employed or self-employed at the time of the accident, as he had declared no income and admitted to avoiding work.

The applicant alternatively claimed ongoing non-earner benefits under section 13.

Relying on consistent specialist medical evidence that the applicant had recovered and was exaggerating his symptoms, the arbitrator concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his essential tasks.

The claims for ongoing benefits were dismissed, but the applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits, including care benefits for his wife who took time off work to care for him, and weekly income benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant required full-time care only during his two-month recuperation from spinal surgery, awarding care benefits for that period but denying them thereafter, as his ongoing vertigo and orthopaedic injuries did not necessitate 24-hour supervision.

On the issue of income benefits, the arbitrator held that the applicant's prior workers' compensation and no-fault benefits did not constitute 'income from employment', meaning his weekly benefits had to be calculated based on the statutory deemed minimum earnings.

The arbitrator remained seized of the insurer's claim for repayment of an alleged overpayment pending a pending Divisional Court ruling.