Krista Cole

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental or behavioural disorder) following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal reviewed expert evidence and the applicant's self-reported functioning.

The Tribunal found the applicant's self-reports unreliable and inconsistent with his academic, employment, and social history.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not sustain a marked impairment in social functioning or adaptation, and therefore did not meet the threshold for a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder under Criterion 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal assessed the applicant's functioning across four spheres: activities of daily living, social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace (CPP), and adaptation.

While the Tribunal found a marked impairment in CPP, it concluded the applicant only sustained moderate impairments in the other three spheres.

As the applicant did not demonstrate a marked impairment in three or more spheres, or an extreme impairment in one, the application was dismissed.

This case concerns an application for dependant's relief under the Succession Law Reform Act by a common-law spouse against the intestate estate of her deceased partner.

The deceased's adult daughter had died after him, and her estate trustee claimed the estate under intestacy rules to support the daughter's three young children.

The court determined that the common-law spouse was the sole dependant under the Act, as the adult daughter did not meet the criteria for dependency.

Finding that the deceased had not made adequate provision for the spouse's support, the court held that her legal and moral claims took precedence over the daughter's intestacy claim.

The common-law spouse was awarded the entire remaining balance of the estate.

The Stevens defendants brought a motion seeking leave to compel the plaintiff, Emanuel Ismail, to undergo an independent psychiatric examination.

The plaintiff had previously submitted a psychologist's report and initially agreed to a psychiatric assessment but later refused, citing concerns about location, number of visits, and the necessity of a psychiatrist to respond to a psychologist.

The court granted leave for the motion and ordered the plaintiff to attend the psychiatric examination, emphasizing the systemic issue of late expert reports and the need for trial fairness.

The court found that a psychiatric assessment was necessary given the plaintiff's use of anti-depressant medication and the claim for future care costs related to it, distinguishing this case from others where such examinations were deemed unnecessary.