Dr. Langer

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

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, determining the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions, including chronic pain and psychological issues from a prior accident, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions prevented maximal medical recovery within the MIG, noting her medical reports predated the current accident.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, the MIG limits were exhausted, and the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought $2,000 for an orthopaedic assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had significant pre-existing conditions and that the medical evidence did not establish an orthopaedic injury resulting from the accident.

Preferring the respondent's medical examination report, which found no physical impairments, the Tribunal concluded the assessment was not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The arbitrator found the applicant's testimony lacked credibility, noting inconsistencies between her evidence at the hearing and her self-reporting to medical experts.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's expert reports because they relied on her inconsistent narrative and lacked clinical testing details.

The application for arbitration was dismissed, and the insurer was awarded its expenses.

During a jury trial for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff sought to qualify a chiropractor as an expert to testify about an in‑home functional assessment.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether the proposed testimony satisfied the admissibility criteria for expert evidence under R. v. Mohan.

The judge found the proposed opinion exceeded the witness’s professional expertise, overlapped with evidence already provided by more qualified medical experts, and largely repeated the plaintiff’s own testimony.

Because the proposed evidence lacked necessity and probative value, the witness was not qualified as an expert.

The ruling emphasizes the trial judge’s gatekeeping role in scrutinizing expert evidence and preventing unnecessary or duplicative expert testimony.

During a jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act to determine whether the plaintiff had sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

The court assessed extensive medical evidence concerning shoulder injuries, surgeries, and alleged chronic pain.

While the court accepted that the accident aggravated a pre-existing shoulder condition requiring surgical treatment, it found the plaintiff’s evidence of ongoing limitations unreliable and inconsistent with medical opinions and surveillance evidence.

The court concluded that the plaintiff had not established, on a balance of probabilities, that any impairment was permanent, serious, or sufficiently impactful on important functions.

The statutory threshold was therefore not met and the claim for non‑pecuniary damages was barred.

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

The insurer terminated her income replacement benefits after 16 weeks, arguing her injuries were limited to a WAD II neck injury.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from a psychological impairment and chronic pain syndrome directly resulting from the accident, entitling her to ongoing income replacement benefits, housekeeping expenses, and the cost of a psychological assessment.

The arbitrator also awarded a special award against the insurer, finding it acted unreasonably by maintaining a closed mind and ignoring cogent medical evidence, including its own insurer's examination, that supported the applicant's claim.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents in 1993 and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them in January 1997.

The applicant sought ongoing weekly non-earner benefits, arguing that chronic pain and psychological factors continuously prevented her from engaging in substantially all of her pre-accident activities.

The arbitrator reviewed medical evidence from various experts, noting that while the applicant suffered from chronic pain and depression, her physical injuries had healed and she maintained normal muscle bulk, indicating a higher level of activity than she perceived.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant did not meet the stringent post-156 week test under subsection 13(8)(b) of the Schedule, as her impairment did not continuously prevent her from engaging in substantially all of her former activities.

The application for weekly benefits was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an arbitration decision that denied him additional weekly income benefits following multiple motor vehicle accidents.

The appellant, representing himself on appeal, argued that the arbitration hearing should not have taken place because the issues were decided in a previous arbitration and he did not receive proper notice or full disclosure.

The Director's Delegate found no error in the arbitration process, noting that the previous arbitration only determined which issues could proceed and that the appellant's counsel at the hearing did not object to the proceedings or the admission of expert evidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the arbitration order was confirmed.

The appellant, a pedestrian injured in a motor vehicle accident, appealed an arbitration decision that terminated his weekly income benefits and ordered him to repay overpaid benefits.

The Director of Arbitrations upheld the arbitrator's findings that the appellant was no longer substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his occupation, based on medical and rehabilitation evidence.

Furthermore, the Director affirmed the arbitrator's conclusion that the appellant's financial records were unreliable and constructed after the accident, justifying the calculation of his income benefits at the minimum rate.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits until the respondent terminated them.

An arbitrator found that while the appellant suffered from accident-related pain, he was not substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a machinist.

The appellant appealed, arguing the arbitrator misapprehended the medical and surveillance evidence, misapplied the test under section 12 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and that the hearing was unfair because he was unrepresented.

The Director of Arbitrations dismissed the appeal, finding the arbitrator's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence, the correct legal test was applied, and the arbitration process was fair.