Laurie Warren

The Applicant sought payment for various home repairs, cleaning services, and the cost difference for a dishwasher as rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that home repairs can qualify as 'home modifications' under section 16(3)(i) if they serve a rehabilitative purpose.

The Tribunal ordered payment for the repair of a basement step, installation of a handrail, and repair of loose tiles, as these addressed hazards exacerbated by the Applicant's accident-related impairments.

Claims for cleaning services, powder room repairs, and the dishwasher cost difference were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a mental or behavioural disorder.

The insurer's psychiatric assessor concluded she had a moderate impairment, while the applicant's assessors found a marked impairment in adaptation to work or work-like settings.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's assessors, finding their conclusions consistent with her real-world functioning and psychometric testing.

The arbitrator held that the applicant suffered a marked impairment in adaptation and therefore met the definition of catastrophic impairment.

During a civil jury trial arising from a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiffs sought to exclude the testimony of a defence neuropsychologist regarding neuropsychological testing and symptom validity assessment.

The court applied the admissibility framework for expert evidence from R. v. Mohan and the two‑step reliability analysis from R. v. Abbey.

While the expert’s methodology raised concerns regarding cultural and linguistic validity of standardized tests and the absence of normative data for the plaintiff’s background, the court concluded the opinion met the threshold reliability for admissibility.

To preserve fairness and avoid improper commentary on credibility, the court permitted the expert to testify on testing methodology, behavioural observations, and differential diagnosis but prohibited opinions implying deceit, malingering, or general credibility.

The evidence was therefore admitted subject to strict limits and jury instructions.