Dr. Mian

The applicant sought entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB) and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had terminated the IRB based on multidisciplinary assessments concluding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a restaurant server.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide supporting medical documentation to meet her onus for both the IRB and the treatment plan, relying instead on perceived deficiencies in the respondent's evidence.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's medical evidence that the applicant's injuries were transient soft tissue injuries and that her psychological issues did not prevent her from working.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, including claims for interest and an award.

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

The respondent placed the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied treatment plans beyond the $3,500 limit.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not subject to the MIG because a pre-existing gunshot wound to his shoulder would prevent maximal recovery from his soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for two physical therapy treatment plans.

A psychological assessment was also deemed payable because the respondent failed to provide notice of its refusal within the required 10 business days under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

The applicant, convicted of aggravated assault and other offences for administering cocaine to her two-year-old son, applied for bail pending her appeal.

She argued her trial counsel provided ineffective assistance due to a pending suspension by the Law Society and a breach of the duty of loyalty.

The Court of Appeal found the grounds of appeal to be weak, noting the trial judge had already dismissed a mistrial application on these grounds.

Given the serious nature of the offences and the weak appeal grounds, the court held the applicant failed to show her detention was not necessary in the public interest.

The application for bail pending appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter in the shaking death of his infant son.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the appellant's wife, who had initially lied to police and had the opportunity to commit the offence herself.

The appellant appealed the conviction based on several errors in the trial judge's charge to the jury.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made multiple errors, including improperly instructing the jury on circumstantial evidence, misdirecting them on how to treat the wife's evidence, and failing to properly instruct on prior acts of misconduct.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant was convicted of aggravated assault for allegedly burning her 3½-year-old granddaughter's face on a stove.

At trial, the unsworn child testified against the appellant, and both sides called expert witnesses regarding the burns, the child's memory, and child abuse.

The Supreme Court of Canada ordered a new trial, finding that while the child was properly permitted to testify, the trial judge erred by allowing an expert witness to testify that the child's behaviour indicated long-term abuse and to improperly comment on the child's credibility.

The Court also found errors in the Crown's cross-examination of a defence expert using unproven learned treatises.