Dr. J. Stewart

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant sought removal from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer from chronic pain with functional impairment, noting the lack of evidence regarding functional limitations and the limited value of a virtual assessment.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which found the applicant's self-reporting invalid, over the applicant's assessment.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissed the claims for treatment plans, and denied any interest or award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent determined the applicant sustained a minor injury and was subject to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit of $3,500, denying several treatment plans.

The applicant argued his psychological impairments and chronic pain removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence inconsistent and preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, which concluded the impairments were minor.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain under the AMA Guides and had achieved full functional recovery.

As the applicant sustained a minor injury and had exhausted the MIG funding limit, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The plaintiff, a 20-year employee, went on stress leave and never returned to work after her employer hired an individual who had sexually harassed her 12 years earlier.

The plaintiff sued for constructive dismissal and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

The court dismissed the tort claim, finding that while the employer's conduct was flagrant and outrageous, it was not calculated to produce harm.

However, the court found the plaintiff was constructively dismissed because the employer's dismissive response to her concerns made continued employment intolerable.

The plaintiff was awarded 12 months' pay in lieu of notice and $100,000 in Honda damages for the employer's insensitive conduct.