Dr. Joshua Muhlstock

The defendant brought a motion under section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act to restrict the self-represented plaintiff from initiating or pursuing further interlocutory proceedings in a motor vehicle accident action commenced in 2012.

The court found the plaintiff had engaged in vexatious conduct through persistent unsuccessful appeals of interlocutory orders concerning irrelevant demands for an interpreter's personal information, blind-copying numerous unrelated persons on litigation correspondence, and flooding defence counsel's inbox with repetitive emails.

The motion was granted, ordering that the plaintiff shall not institute any new motions or appeals in the action except by leave of a judge of the Superior Court.

No costs were ordered given the plaintiff's receipt of social assistance.

The applicant, who was deemed catastrophically impaired following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, sought payment for several treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal denied the treatment plans for a sleep system and a scuba diving course, finding they were not reasonable and necessary as the applicant had a similar sleep system prior to the accident and was already engaging in other activities that supplanted the need for the scuba course.

However, the Tribunal approved the treatment plan for a rehabilitation assistant to help the applicant move homes, noting his physical and psychological impairments hindered his ability to do so independently.

The Tribunal also approved treatment plans for chiropractic, massage, and physiotherapy services, finding they provided necessary pain relief, but denied a duplicate chiropractic plan.

The plaintiff, Ruth Kidane, brought an action for damages following a slip and fall on a sidewalk.

Liability was admitted by the City of Toronto, leaving causation and damages as the sole issues at trial.

The plaintiff sought over $1.2 million in damages, attributing various chronic health issues and an inability to start a daycare business to the fall.

The court applied a robust and pragmatic approach to causation, finding that the fall caused a minor head injury/concussion, multiple soft tissue injuries, and low mood, which resolved within one year.

The court rejected the plaintiff's claims for other injuries and long-term effects, attributing them to pre-existing conditions.

The court awarded $45,000 for general damages, $4,000 for loss of income (limited to 2014), and $161.05 for out-of-pocket expenses, totaling $49,161.05.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a combined psychological and neuropsychological assessment.

The plaintiff had alleged cognitive impairment and attended an Acquired Brain Injury program, but had not obtained her own neuropsychological report.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants had delayed in requesting the assessment and failed to demonstrate that trial fairness required the order, especially given the plaintiff's strategic decision not to focus on significant cognitive deficiency at trial.

The court emphasized the prejudice to the plaintiff in terms of cost and time, and the self-inflicted disadvantage of the defendants' delay.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a cannabis prescription, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and assistive devices.

The insurer denied the cannabis prescription pending a section 44 assessment, which the applicant refused to attend, arguing it was unreasonable and not permitted for prescription drugs.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was barred from proceeding with the cannabis claim because the insurer's request for a section 44 assessment was reasonable and properly noticed.

The Tribunal further dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and a rollator walker, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the insurer's assessors who found the applicant's soft tissue injuries were uncomplicated.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and psychological services.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving her injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's independent medical examinations, which concluded the applicant suffered only soft tissue injuries and no diagnosable psychological impairment.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the application for further benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, attendant care, caregiver, medical, and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to prove her entitlement on a balance of probabilities, noting significant issues with her credibility, evidence of malingering, and a failure to disclose pre-existing medical conditions.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the insurer's medical experts, who concluded that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

All claims for benefits were denied.

The applicant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits based on insurer examinations concluding the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The Tribunal found the applicant's ongoing pain and psychological impairments continuously prevented her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities, entitling her to non-earner benefits.

The Tribunal also determined the reasonable and necessary quantum of attendant care benefits and ordered a 5 percent award against the insurer for unreasonably delaying payment of medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $1,836.00 for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a 2011 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, which was over four years old, insufficient to demonstrate an ongoing impairment.

Preferring the respondent's more recent insurer examination report, the Tribunal concluded the treatment plan was neither reasonable nor necessary and dismissed the application.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from her insurer.

The insurer terminated her income replacement benefits and denied medical and rehabilitation benefits, maintaining for nearly three years that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment and, post-104 weeks, a complete inability to engage in suitable employment due to chronic pain.

The arbitrator granted the claimed income replacement benefits, medical benefits, and costs of examinations.

Furthermore, the arbitrator awarded a $25,000 Special Award against the insurer, finding that it had unreasonably delayed and denied benefits by relying on patently flawed medical reports and ignoring credible evidence of the applicant's chronic pain.