Dr. McGrory

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various medical and rehabilitation treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant, a personal support worker, suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment and was entitled to pre-104 week IRBs.

However, the applicant was not entitled to post-104 week IRBs as she was currently employed as a Lab Patient Technician, demonstrating she did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for the proposed treatment plans and assessments, finding insufficient corroborating medical evidence to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed as there was no evidence the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed benefits.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for damages arising from a car collision.

The court found the defendant negligent and that his negligence caused certain injuries to the plaintiff.

However, the plaintiff's injuries, primarily cervical and lumbar strain exacerbating pre-existing chronic pain, along with some generalized anxiety and headaches, were found not to meet the statutory threshold for recovery of general damages or health care expenses under the Insurance Act.

The court determined that the impairments were not permanent or serious enough to substantially interfere with most of the plaintiff's usual activities of daily living, especially considering her significant pre-existing health issues and inconsistent participation in recommended treatments.

Consequently, the defendant's threshold motion was granted, and the action was dismissed.

A status review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning two young children (ages 4 and 5) who had been apprehended and placed in foster care.

The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the children remain in need of protection and sought a Crown wardship order without access.

The respondent mother sought to have the children returned to her care subject to society supervision.

The court found that the children remain in need of protection due to the mother's inability to consistently manage the children's complex behavioural and emotional needs despite participating in numerous parenting programs over three years.

The court ordered Crown wardship with no access, finding that the children's best interests were served by remaining in their stable foster placement with Ms. Ba., where their emotional and behavioural needs were being appropriately met.

A child protection summary judgment motion brought by Chatham-Kent Children's Services seeking to have a child declared a Crown ward with no access to the respondents.

The father presented a plan for the child's care, but the mother and paternal step-grandfather were in default.

The court found that the child was in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and that the father's plan was deficient.

The father had demonstrated a lack of commitment to the child through inconsistent access visits and had a history of parenting failures with other children.

The court granted the Society's motion, making the child a Crown ward with no access to any respondents.

The respondent mother brought a motion to set aside an order made on February 3, 2014, which declared her daughter a ward of the Crown with no access.

The mother sought to rely on facts arising or discovered after the order was made, arguing that fresh evidence would undermine important findings of fact and put the best interests of the child back in issue.

The court considered whether Rule 59.06(2)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure applied to child protection proceedings and, assuming it did, examined whether the mother met the conjunctive criteria for setting aside an order based on newly discovered evidence.

The court found that the evidence presented—affidavits from the child's father, a neighbour, and the mother's boyfriend—did not constitute new evidence, would not have changed the outcome, and raised credibility concerns.

The motion was dismissed.

This is a child protection trial concerning the disposition of a child born in 2010 who was placed in foster care at birth.

The applicant society sought a Crown wardship order with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent mother proposed placement with her mother (the grandmother) under a custody order.

The father did not participate in the trial.

The court was required to determine the child's best interests under section 37(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, considering competing plans for permanent placement.