Dr. Liu

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired following a 2013 motor vehicle accident, sought non-earner benefits and payment for private school tuition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life within 104 weeks of the accident or continuously thereafter.

The Tribunal also denied the claim for private school tuition, as the applicant failed to establish it was reasonable and necessary, and the treatment plan was unsigned.

Claims for interest and a special award were consequently dismissed.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review and restriction of liberty hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault due to schizophrenia.

The restriction of liberty was initiated after the accused committed an unprovoked assault on a co-patient while experiencing auditory hallucinations.

The Board found the restriction of liberty was justified and appropriate.

Based on recent stability and medication compliance, the Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with modifications, including a transfer to Forensic Services and the addition of indirectly supervised privileges on grounds and in the community.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual hearing for an accused who was found unfit to stand trial on a charge of second-degree murder.

The hospital requested an amendment to his detention disposition to allow transfer from a 'Secure Forensic' unit to a general 'Forensic Service' unit if needed due to his neurocognitive decline and reactivity to stimuli.

The Board found that the accused remains unfit to stand trial and continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board denied the hospital's request to amend the disposition, finding that the accused is currently well-supported on the Secure Forensic Unit and no situation currently necessitates a transfer.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for multiple assault and mischief charges.

The Board found that the accused, who is diagnosed with schizophrenia and cannabis use disorder, continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his lack of insight, history of medication non-adherence, and ongoing symptoms.

The Board ordered the continuation of his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, denying a request for international travel passes.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental or behavioural disorder) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's limitations in activities of daily living were predominantly caused by his physical impairments rather than a mental or behavioural disorder.

The applicant failed to establish a Class 4 (marked) impairment in activities of daily living, and thus could not meet the requirement of three Class 4 impairments.

Claims for various treatment plans were dismissed as the applicant's funding limits were exhausted.

However, the adjudicator granted an award of 25% under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding that the respondent unreasonably delayed the payment of two invoices that it had previously agreed to pay.

The accused was found not criminally responsible for manslaughter and mischief after shoving an elderly woman, causing her death.

At the initial Ontario Review Board hearing, the panel found that the accused, who has a diagnosis of schizophrenia and a history of medication non-compliance, continues to represent a significant threat to public safety.

Accepting a joint recommendation, the Board ordered the accused detained at a psychiatric hospital on a general forensic unit with discretionary privileges, including indirectly supervised community passes.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment from a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in its treatment of expert and lay evidence, relied on hearsay, and misapplied the causation test.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal reasonably rejected the appellant's expert evidence after the expert recanted his opinion upon being presented with contradictory medical and benefits records.

The court also held that hearsay evidence is admissible before the Tribunal and the causation test was properly applied.

The applicant sought payment for four physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans, arguing that further facility-based treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the treatment was reasonable and necessary, as there was insufficient evidence that the goals of treatment, particularly pain relief, were being met to a reasonable degree despite years of consistent physiotherapy.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment from a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness by relying on hearsay evidence from medical reports and erred in finding his expert witness recanted his opinion.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the hearsay evidence was only one of many factors considered and the applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine on it.

The Tribunal also found no error regarding the expert witness, who admitted during cross-examination that his opinion was inaccurate because he had not reviewed crucial medical records that contradicted the applicant's self-reports.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace on long-term disability, sought judicial review of a decision by the Justices of the Peace Review Council recommending her removal from office.

The Council found she committed judicial misconduct by practicing law without a license or insurance on three occasions.

The applicant argued the hearing panel breached procedural fairness by not granting a further adjournment and that the penalty was unreasonable due to her cognitive disabilities.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the hearing was procedurally fair and the recommendation for removal was reasonable given the lack of reliable medical evidence supporting a cognitive deficit and the severity of the misconduct.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental and behavioural disorder following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not credible, noting significant inconsistencies between his testimony, pre-accident medical records, and surveillance video showing him performing activities he claimed he could not do.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his psychological impairments and functional limitations were caused by the accident, as he had significant pre-existing conditions and was completely disabled prior to the accident.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The appellant, who was found not criminally responsible for killing his sister, appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board.

He argued the Board failed to order the least onerous and least restrictive disposition by not directing the hospital to grant him indirectly supervised passes without requiring his participation in structured programming.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the Board reasonably concluded that the hospital needed the appellant to engage in structured programming to assess his risk to the community, and that no treatment impasse existed.

An appellant appealed a disposition of the Ontario Review Board that continued his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health under a hybrid order requiring detention in the Secure Forensic Unit with discretion to transfer to the General Forensic Unit.

The appellant had been found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder for attacks on strangers in 2007.

The Board found the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety but was considering a treatment plan involving transfer to a more supportive general unit with behavioural programs.

The Court of Appeal found the Board's disposition unreasonable given the identified treatment impasse, the appellant's advancing age and declining health, and the lack of meaningful progress.

The appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted for an independent assessment and rehearing.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition finding that an NCR accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety and ordering a conditional discharge rather than an absolute discharge.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible in 2002 for serious violent offences including aggravated assault, kidnapping, and assault with a weapon, argued the Board's finding was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the appellant poses a significant threat within the meaning of the Criminal Code, based on his serious index offences, ongoing psychiatric symptoms including paranoid delusions, lack of insight into his mental illness, substance abuse, and stated intention to discontinue medication if absolutely discharged.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently sustained a disc herniation while performing deadlifts with a personal trainer to strengthen his back.

The respondent denied income replacement benefits, arguing the disc herniation was a separate injury not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test and found the disc herniation was causally connected to the accident, as the applicant was performing the exercises to rehabilitate his accident-related back injury.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment for the first 104 weeks, and a complete inability to engage in suitable employment thereafter.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits and the cost of a vocational assessment.

Two appellants, both found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder and incapable of consenting to medical treatment under provincial law, appealed detention orders imposed by the Ontario Review Board.

The central issue was whether an accused person incapable of consenting to medical treatment could nonetheless consent to a condition regarding psychiatric or other treatment under section 672.55(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeal held that the capacity required to consent to such a condition differs from the capacity required to consent to the treatment itself.

An accused need only understand information relevant to the operation of the condition and appreciate the reasonably foreseeable consequences of agreeing to it, including potential consequences for liberty.

The Court overruled its prior jurisprudence to the contrary and allowed the appeals, remitting the matters back to the Board for re-hearing.