Dr. Karabatsos

The moving party sought an extension of time under r. 53.03(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to serve a responding orthopaedic expert report after the pre-trial conference deadline.

The court applied r. 53.08(1), including post-amendment authorities emphasizing that late expert reports are not to be routinely permitted and that the moving party must show both a reasonable explanation and no non-compensable prejudice or undue trial delay.

The court found the missed deadline was caused by inadvertence in trial scheduling communications rather than inattentiveness to the file, and accepted that explanation as reasonable on the record.

The court also found any prejudice could be addressed by costs and that trial delay was not established.

The motion was granted, with the moving party required to pay reasonable costs of an expedited reply report, and no costs were ordered on the motion.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to various attendant care benefits and treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal evaluated the applicant's impairments under Criterion 7 (Whole Person Impairment) and Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders).

The Tribunal rejected several of the applicant's physical impairment ratings due to a lack of causal evidence and methodological flaws, concluding the applicant did not meet the 55% WPI threshold.

Under Criterion 8, the Tribunal found the applicant had only mild impairments in activities of daily living and social functioning, failing to meet the threshold of three marked or one extreme impairment.

As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and had exhausted his non-CAT limits, the claims for attendant care and treatment plans were dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to various statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7, accepting a combined Whole Person Impairment rating of 55% based on musculoskeletal, headache, medication, and psychological impairments.

While the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to attendant care and housekeeping benefits in principle, it held that no benefits were payable because the applicant failed to prove the expenses had been incurred.

The claims for medical benefits, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The court considered whether the plaintiff, Cory McGrath, sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function as a result of a motor vehicle collision, as required by the "threshold" in section 267.5(15) of the Insurance Act.

After a jury trial and detailed review of the evidence, including expert and lay testimony, the court found that Ms. McGrath met the threshold, entitling her to recover health care expenses and non-pecuniary loss.

The decision provides a thorough application of the statutory and regulatory framework, and the relevant case law, to the facts of the case.

The appellant was injured in an ATV rollover and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) found she was not catastrophically impaired, giving little weight to the impairment ratings of her chiropractor, who had offered psychological diagnoses beyond his scope of practice.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found no error of law in the LAT's treatment of the chiropractor's evidence, affirming that while a chiropractor may compile impairment ratings under the AMA Guides, they cannot provide medical diagnoses outside their expertise.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Nino Kotorashvili, sued the defendant, Dr. Moo Hyung Lee, for medical negligence following a re-fracture of her clavicle after hardware removal surgery.

The court found Dr. Lee negligent for breaching the standard of care by prematurely removing the hardware without updated imaging and failing to obtain informed consent regarding the increased risk of re-fracture.

The re-fracture led to a malunion and a third reconstructive surgery.

The court awarded the plaintiff $35,000 in general damages for the re-fracture, prolonged recovery, and the need for the third surgery, plus pre-judgment interest at 2%.

The applicant was injured in an all-terrain vehicle rollover and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criteria 6, 7, and 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criteria 6 or 7, preferring the respondent's medical assessments over the applicant's, noting that the applicant's chiropractor improperly assigned ratings outside his scope of practice and without conducting in-person assessments.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not suffer marked impairments in the spheres of function under Criterion 8.

Additionally, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $9,977.20 in overpaid income replacement benefits to the respondent, plus interest.

The plaintiffs brought an action against the municipality for damages arising from a single-vehicle motorcycle accident caused by a surface discontinuity at an intersection.

The court assessed the plaintiffs' damages, including general damages, past and future income loss, and Family Law Act claims.

However, applying the four-part test for municipal liability under section 44 of the Municipal Act, the court found that while the roadway was in a state of non-repair that caused the accident, the municipality successfully established a statutory defence because the height of the discontinuity met the Minimum Maintenance Standards.

Consequently, the action was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought pre- and post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs), which the respondent insurer denied.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a sheet metal fabricator and airplane mechanic due to ongoing pain from a right leg fracture.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the more stringent post-104 week test, as his chronic pain and physical limitations resulted in a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal also ordered a 10% award against the insurer under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by failing to adjust the claim after receiving compelling medical reports supporting the applicant's ongoing impairments.

The applicant sought entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident while being transported in a police van.

The insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to comply with section 33 production requests for relevant medical records.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence or persuasive analysis to prove that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary for accident-related impairments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found the applicant was entitled to medical benefits for social work counselling and physiotherapy, preferring the evidence of the applicant's assessors and the respondent's own psychological assessor over the respondent's paper-review orthopaedic assessment.

The adjudicator noted the applicant suffered from accident-related psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The claim for the cost of an OCF-3 was denied as it was not requested by the insurer and provided no new medical information.

The respondent's request for costs under Rule 19.1, alleging the applicant's reply was inflammatory, was dismissed as the conduct did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The applicant sought payment for a multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment (CAT) assessment totaling $25,779.25 following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal held that entitlement to a CAT assessment is a qualified right governed by section 15 of the Schedule, requiring each constituent assessment to be reasonable and necessary, rather than a substantive right under section 25.

Reviewing the medical evidence, the Tribunal found the applicant displayed normal range of motion, functioned independently, and had minimal ongoing treatment, which was inconsistent with the severity of impairment required for a CAT designation.

The application was dismissed, along with claims for interest and a special award.

The applicant sought payment for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically four treatment plans for chiropractic services and a functional abilities assessment, which the insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that two of the treatment plans for passive, facility-based chiropractic services were reasonable and necessary because they relieved the applicant's physical pain, which in turn prevented his psychological injuries from worsening.

However, the Tribunal denied a third treatment plan involving active home-based exercise as it would aggravate his pain, and denied a second functional abilities assessment as duplicative.

The applicant was awarded interest on the approved plans but denied an award for unreasonable delay, as the insurer did not have the critical evidence linking the physical treatment to the psychological injuries until the hearing.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought non-earner, attendant care, and medical benefits from the Insurer.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she was able to participate in most of her pre-accident activities to some extent.

The claim for attendant care benefits was denied because the services provided by her son were not 'incurred' expenses, as there was no promise or legal obligation to pay him.

The claims for medical benefits were also dismissed because the treatment plans were not incurred, not signed by the Applicant, and not completed by a regulated health professional as required by the Schedule.

The defendant hospital brought two motions: one to enforce an alleged settlement (a Pierringer Agreement) and another for summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's medical malpractice claim.

The court dismissed the motion to enforce the settlement, finding that while the parties had agreed on the settlement amount, essential terms regarding document production and witness cooperation remained unresolved.

The court also dismissed the summary judgment motion, concluding that competing expert evidence regarding the nursing standard of care and whether the nurses' actions contributed to the plaintiff's compartment syndrome created genuine issues requiring a trial.

The parties settled a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident six days before trial for $775,000 plus costs.

The plaintiff sought partial and substantial indemnity costs totalling approximately $246,000 in fees and $157,500 in disbursements.

The defendant argued the amounts were excessive.

The court reviewed the claimed fees and disbursements, noting some duplication and excessive preparation time.

Applying the principle of reasonableness, the court fixed the plaintiff's fees at $170,000 plus HST and disbursements at $98,800 inclusive of HST.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits.

The parties settled the claims for income replacement and medical benefits, leaving only the issue of whether the applicant was entitled to a Special Award under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act for the insurer's initial denial of benefits.

The arbitrator found that the insurer acted reasonably at all relevant times based on the medical information available, which supported a theory that the applicant's impairments were due to pre-existing degenerative disc disease rather than the accident.

The claim for a Special Award was dismissed.

The plaintiff moved for directions to pre-emptively dismiss or stay the defendant Dr. Shah's motion for summary judgment and to prevent cross-examination of the plaintiff's expert witnesses.

The plaintiff argued the case was complex, the defendant had no realistic prospect of success, and the process was burdensome and raised access to justice concerns.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the summary judgment motion was not an abuse of process and that the defendant had the right to complete the evidentiary record, including cross-examining experts.

The court imposed terms to ensure the summary judgment motion proceeded as scheduled.