Dr. Ken T. Fern

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

The insurer denied the claims, and the applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The insurer raised a preliminary issue that the claims were barred by res judicata, as the applicant had previously appealed the same claims, resulting in a final decision that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and she was not entitled to income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that the applicant's new medical reports did not constitute fresh, new, and previously unavailable evidence that would impeach the prior decision.

The appeal was dismissed as barred by res judicata, and costs were denied.

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

The insurer argued that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant, who had been an active amateur hockey player and weightlifter, claimed he developed chronic back pain as a result of the accident, which prevented him from continuing his athletic pursuits.

The arbitrator reviewed conflicting medical evidence from orthopaedic surgeons and other experts.

The arbitrator accepted the applicant's evidence and the medical opinions supporting a chronic pain diagnosis, finding that the ongoing sharp back pain constituted an injury beyond the scope of the MIG.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant's injuries do not fall within the Minor Injury Guideline and awarded expenses to the applicant.

The plaintiff, a seven-year-old student, suffered a catastrophic brain bleed after being punched in the head by another student during recess.

The plaintiff sued the school board and its staff for negligent supervision.

The court found that while the punch caused the brain bleed due to the plaintiff's pre-existing undiagnosed arteriovenous malformation, the school board and staff were not negligent.

The general supervision of the schoolyard met the standard of a careful and prudent parent, and the offending student's prior minor misbehaviour did not warrant closer supervision.

The action was dismissed.