Dr. Jovanovski

The plaintiffs moved to strike the jury in a motor vehicle collision trial, alleging a breach of the rule in Browne v. Dunn by the defence.

The defence cross-examined the plaintiffs' medical experts on an alleged inconsistent symptom (fluid leaking from the ear) reported by the plaintiff to the Mayo Clinic, without having put this specific inconsistency to the plaintiff during his cross-examination.

The court found a serious breach of the Browne v. Dunn rule, which impaired trial fairness and the jury's ability to assess credibility.

The court determined that neither a correcting instruction nor recalling the plaintiff would remedy the damage, and therefore granted the motion to strike the jury.

The plaintiff, a prominent human rights lawyer, was struck by the defendant's motor vehicle while riding her bicycle.

The defendant failed to discharge the reverse onus under the Highway Traffic Act and was found wholly liable.

The court accepted expert medical evidence that the plaintiff suffered a permanent mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) and chronic migraines, which effectively ended her legal career.

The court dismissed the defendants' threshold motion, finding the plaintiff sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important function, and awarded substantial damages including $250,000 in general damages, past and future income loss, and future care costs.

The applicant was involved in a minor rear-end collision while driving to her first day back at work following a prior incident that caused a concussion.

She sought a determination of catastrophic impairment due to mental or behavioural disorders, ongoing income replacement benefits, and approval of several treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, as her function had improved to non-catastrophic levels and validity testing raised concerns about symptom magnification.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for ongoing income replacement benefits, finding that her current impairments were not caused by the subject accident.

The applicant was awarded one treatment plan for driver rehabilitation therapy and associated interest, while the remaining treatment plans were denied.

The applicant was injured in a serious motor vehicle accident and sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment under s. 3.1(1)(7) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant submitted his whole person impairment (WPI) rating was 60%, while the respondent insurer argued it was 34%.

The adjudicator evaluated competing expert medical evidence regarding the applicant's orthopaedic, neurological, and psychological impairments.

After assessing the ratings under the AMA Guides, the adjudicator concluded the applicant's total WPI was 46%.

As this fell below the 55% threshold, the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to payment for physiotherapy and psychological services, as the evidence supported ongoing chronic pain and psychological impairments.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for occupational therapy, neuropsychology testing, speech language pathology, and a dietician's assessment, finding insufficient objective medical evidence to justify these expenses.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

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.