3 total
The court overturned a return order, applying the rebuttable presumption against returning a refugee child.
A wrongfully retained child was ordered returned to her country of origin after Canada granted her refugee status.
The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, finding that the application judge erred in failing to apply the rebuttable presumption against the return of a refugee child and in dismissing the child's objection to return.
The court held that when a child has been recognized as a Convention refugee by the Immigration and Refugee Board, a rebuttable presumption arises that there is a risk of persecution on return.
The application judge improperly questioned the refugee determination process and reweighed evidence without oral testimony or cross-examination.
Additionally, the child's clear and repeated objection to return, based on fear of violence by the father, was not given proper weight.
The matter was remitted to the Superior Court for determination of parenting and decision-making authority under section 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.
Applicant removed from Minor Injury Guideline due to psychological impairment; disputed treatment plans approved.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.
The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services, arguing the applicant's physical injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The Tribunal found that the applicant's diagnosed psychological impairment removed her from the MIG.
The Tribunal further held that the disputed chiropractic and psychological treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to assist with pain management and psychological recovery.
The applicant's claim for a special award under Regulation 664 was denied, as the respondent had relied reasonably on its insurer examination reports.
Catastrophic impairment and non-earner benefits denied due to malingering and pre-existing disability; limited benefits awarded.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, non-earner benefits, attendant care, housekeeping, and medical benefits.
The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to prove catastrophic impairment, noting evidence of sub-maximal effort and malingering on psychological tests, and surveillance contradicting physical impairment claims.
The claim for non-earner benefits was dismissed because the applicant was already completely unable to carry on a normal life prior to the accident due to a pre-existing major depressive disorder.
However, the arbitrator awarded attendant care, housekeeping, and certain medical benefits for the first 12 months post-accident, finding them reasonable and necessary for that limited period.
Claims for a special award were dismissed.
