Dr. Michael Boucher

The defendants brought a motion seeking orders for the plaintiff to undergo two medical examinations—one by an orthopedic surgeon and one by a neurologist.

The court considered whether these examinations were necessary for trial fairness or duplicative of prior assessments.

The court found that the requested examinations were not duplicative and were necessary to ensure fairness, and ordered them to proceed.

The court declined to order the plaintiff to pay a cancellation fee for a missed appointment due to her chronic pain, but awarded the defendants costs of the motion.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders) following a 2012 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal first dismissed the applicant's preliminary motion for summary judgment, finding no jurisdiction to dispose of substantive issues without a hearing.

On the merits, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's psychiatric expert over the applicant's expert, finding that the applicant's functional impairments were primarily caused by physical chronic pain rather than an accident-related mental or behavioural disorder.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a marked or extreme impairment in any of the four areas of functioning.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $250 in costs for unreasonable delays in producing disclosures.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to attendant care, medical, and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $65,000 non-catastrophic limit.

The Tribunal assessed her impairments under criteria 7 (whole person impairment) and 8 (mental or behavioural impairment) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The adjudicator found the applicant's combined whole person impairment was 42%, falling short of the 55% threshold, and that she did not suffer a marked impairment in three or more areas of function.

Consequently, the application for benefits and a section 10 award was dismissed.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's motion for punitive damages for lack of jurisdiction and awarded $2,000 in costs to the respondent due to the applicant bringing frivolous and vexatious motions alleging criminal conduct and contempt.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The court found the defendant entirely at fault.

The court concluded the plaintiff's injuries, which included chronic pain and post-concussion syndrome, met the statutory threshold as a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The plaintiff was awarded $100,000 in general damages, $1,993.10 in special damages, and $143,560.78 for future care costs.

Claims for past and future income loss were dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish she would have worked as a dental assistant but for the accident.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The adjudicator found that the respondent complied with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

On the substantive issue, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and his psychological impairments did not remove him from the MIG.

The adjudicator also found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the application for further medical benefits was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought dispute resolution at the Licence Appeal Tribunal after the respondent insurer denied a treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment.

The adjudicator found that the assessment was reasonable and necessary, given compelling evidence from the applicant's treating physicians of constant and severe pain.

However, the adjudicator dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award under Ontario Regulation 664, finding no evidence that the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payments.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the assessment and applicable interest.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages following a jury trial in a personal injury action.

The jury awarded general damages but zero for past income loss, future income loss, future housekeeping, and future healthcare costs.

The motion judge, exercising statutory duty to determine the threshold under s. 267.5(5)(b) of the Insurance Act, found that the plaintiff's impairments were not permanent, important, or serious.

The judge considered the jury's implied findings regarding the plaintiff's credibility and the non-permanence of injuries, preferring the defendants' medical expert evidence.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was dismissed.

The applicant, who was struck by an automobile while riding a bicycle, sought a medical and rehabilitation benefit of $10,033.92 for a chronic pain program.

The insurer denied the claim based on independent medical examinations suggesting the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery.

The Tribunal found the proposed treatment plan reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's assessors which demonstrated ongoing pain and functional impairment exceeding physical signs of injury.

The appeal was allowed, and the insurer was ordered to pay the benefit with interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued his injuries, including bicipital tendinitis, chronic pain, and psychological impairments, as well as a pre-existing developmental disability, removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft tissue injuries.

The applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that his shoulder tendinitis was caused by the accident, that his pain was accompanied by functional impairment, or that he suffered a psychological injury.

Furthermore, there was no evidence that his pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

As the $3,500 MIG limit had been exhausted, the application for further physiotherapy benefits was dismissed.

Following an arbitration where the insurer successfully argued that the applicant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline, both parties sought their expenses of the proceeding.

The arbitrator awarded expenses to the insurer, noting its complete success on the issues in dispute and its reasonable offers to settle made well before the hearing.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's arguments that the insurer engaged in sharp practice or that novel issues were raised.

The insurer's claimed costs were reduced to reflect a more reasonable preparation-to-hearing time ratio and to comply with the maximum allowable disbursements for expert witnesses and travel under the Expense Regulation.

The insurer was awarded $10,928.92 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming the cost of an attendant care assessment.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving his impairments fell outside the MIG, preferring the insurer's expert evidence that the diagnosed radiculopathy was a sequelae of soft tissue injuries.

As the applicant was subject to the MIG, he was not entitled to attendant care benefits, rendering the assessment cost unreasonable and unnecessary.

The application was dismissed.