Dr. Khan

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying certain statutory accident benefits.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT adjudicator denied the appellant procedural fairness by unilaterally separating her hearing from her mother's, drastically reducing the scheduled hearing time without adequate notice, and refusing to allow cross-examination of the respondent's occupational therapist whose report had been materially altered by an assessment company.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The defendant moved to compel the 94-year-old plaintiff, Estelle Bock, to attend an independent medical examination (IME) in Scarborough, Ontario, after she cancelled an initial appointment due to concerns about the long travel from Sarnia.

The plaintiff's family physician provided an affidavit stating that such travel would be detrimental to her health.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that requiring the plaintiff to travel to Scarborough was beyond inconvenient and jeopardized her health, despite the defendant's prima facie right to choose their expert.

The court granted the defendant leave to arrange an IME in London, Ontario, which the plaintiff's physician deemed medically feasible.

Costs of $2,000 were awarded to the plaintiff, payable forthwith, due to plaintiff's counsel's initial agreement to the Scarborough assessment.

This motion concerned the finalization of a genetic testing requisition form.

Following previous orders for genetic testing, the plaintiffs objected to the defendants' initial requisition form, alleging bias and incompleteness.

The defendants subsequently provided revised forms incorporating the plaintiffs' expert's suggestions.

The court, noting the experts' agreement on the clinical content of the latest form, ordered the requisition form to be finalized consistent with the defendants' third proposed version, along with a prenatal history.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' objections regarding the form's content and the governing law/subcontracting terms, finding them without merit.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury verdict awarding net general damages of $11,181.03, the court considered whether the plaintiff's injuries met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff, whose primary role was a homemaker, sustained permanent and serious impairments to important physical and psychological functions, including PTSD and depression.

The court ruled that the injuries met the threshold and dismissed the defendant's motion.