Dr. Miller

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a medical benefit for psychological services and income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer from a chronic pain condition or psychological impairment caused by the accident, and therefore her injuries were subject to the MIG and its $3,500 funding limit.

Consequently, the claim for psychological services was dismissed.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to complete the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a warehouse packager, dismissing her claim for IRBs and interest.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident that exacerbated her pre-existing migraines.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a pre-104 IRB, as her migraines prevented her from performing the essential tasks of her employment as a restaurant manager.

The Tribunal also awarded a post-104 IRB for a limited period, terminating when medical evidence showed her headaches had significantly improved with prophylaxis, enabling her to engage in part-time employment.

The treatment plan and a claim for a special award were denied, but interest on overdue benefits was granted.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired under criterion 8 of the AMA Guides.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by considering pre- and post-accident levels of function and erred in law by imposing a higher burden of proof for marked impairments in three domains.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact and no breach of procedural fairness.

The Tribunal held that it properly applied the AMA Guides, appropriately weighed the medical evidence, and correctly placed less weight on an occupational therapy report that lacked an in-home assessment.

This trial decision resolved outstanding family law issues between the parties following their separation, including parenting time, child support, spousal support, occupation rent, and the child's surname.

The court ordered a gradual increase in the father's parenting time to six and then seven nights out of fourteen, conditional on his compliance with strict allergy and safety protocols for the child.

The court calculated child support based on a grossed-up income for the father to account for undeclared rental income and ordered proportionate sharing of section 7 expenses.

Finally, the court dismissed the mother's claim for spousal support, dismissed the father's claim for occupation rent, and permitted the mother to change the child's surname to a hyphenated combination of both parents' names.

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

The insurer denied benefits, arguing the Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that while the Applicant's physical injuries did not warrant removal from the MIG, his psychological injuries, specifically an adjustment disorder, did justify removal.

The Tribunal approved two treatment plans for psychological services as reasonable and necessary, but denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services.

Interest was awarded on the overdue psychological benefits.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended that pre-existing conditions and a psychological impairment warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of pre-existing physical conditions precluding recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, which concluded the applicant was not psychologically impaired, over the applicant's evidence.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans, interest, and award were denied.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order to compel the plaintiff to attend three defence medical assessments and for leave to serve defence expert reports late, after failing to comply with the timelines mandated by Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to provide a "reasonable explanation" for their non-compliance, as required by Rule 53.08.

The court emphasized that administrative failures or inattentiveness by counsel or staff do not constitute a reasonable explanation for such delays.

The applicant sought a determination that he was catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule due to mental and behavioral disorders resulting from a motor vehicle accident.

While the Tribunal accepted that the applicant sustained post-traumatic stress disorder, a major depressive episode, and substance use disorder as a result of the accident, it found that these impairments did not reach the threshold of a marked (Class 4) impairment in any of the four functional domains.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant retained some useful functioning in activities of daily living and social functioning, and therefore dismissed the application.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision which found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law regarding his claims of a traumatic brain injury, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome, and upheld the original decision that the applicant's injuries were minor.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law regarding his claims of a traumatic brain injury, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairment.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome.

The Adjudicator confirmed that the original decision properly weighed the medical evidence, correctly applied the criteria for chronic pain, and appropriately assessed the applicant's psychological functionality.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a mild traumatic brain injury, a pre-existing knee condition, chronic pain syndrome, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support a traumatic brain injury or that the pre-existing knee condition precluded recovery within the MIG.

While the applicant's assessor diagnosed Chronic Pain Syndrome, the Tribunal found no substantial functional impairment, as the applicant continued to work full-time and manage daily activities.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, concluding there was no clinically significant psychological impairment.

The applicant was held to remain within the MIG but was entitled to the remaining $1,118.77 of the MIG limit for incurred expenses, plus interest.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered a psychological impairment that removed her from the MIG, relying on the credible evidence of her treating family physician and a psychological assessment over the respondent's insurer's examination.

The Tribunal awarded the cost of a psychological assessment and partially awarded the cost of psychotherapy treatment, deducting duplicative administrative costs.

Claims for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 were dismissed, but interest on overdue benefits was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and its $3,500 funding limit.

The applicant argued she suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments that warranted removal from the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries fell outside the MIG, noting inconsistencies in the medical evidence and a failure to meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain.

The application for medical benefits, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that two young children were in need of protection and should be placed in extended society care with no access to the parents.

The parents had a history of child protection involvement, including the death of one child from malnutrition and the severe malnourishment of another child.

The parents sought the return of the children under a supervision order or placement with a kin caregiver, and requested access if extended care was ordered.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the parents' failure to acknowledge past medical neglect and their rigid adherence to religious beliefs that put the children at risk.

The court ordered extended society care with no access, finding that the parents' mistrust of medical professionals and the society would impair the children's future opportunities for adoption.

Pre-trial motions in a child protection proceeding involving two children (N. and H.) brought by the Children's Aid Society of Peel.

The Society sought to admit prior court decisions as evidence of past parenting and exclude further evidence on matters already adjudicated.

The respondent father sought to exclude prior decisions and adduce evidence regarding parenting of siblings, citing a recent Court of Appeal decision quashing the parents' criminal manslaughter conviction and ordering a new trial.

The court applied the principle of res judicata and found that prior findings regarding the care of children M., Am., and N. were not displaced by the fresh evidence regarding the cause of death.

The court admitted prior decisions as evidence of past parenting and estopped the parents from calling evidence on matters already adjudicated.

The appellants were convicted of unlawful act manslaughter for failing to provide the necessaries of life to their 27-month-old daughter, who died of what trial experts concluded was a combination of asthma and malnutrition.

On appeal, the appellants sought to introduce fresh expert evidence from a forensic pathologist and a pediatric bone disorder expert, challenging the trial evidence on the cause of death.

The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence, noting it was highly cogent and undermined the Crown's theory of liability at trial.

The appeals were allowed, the convictions set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for medical treatments, transportation, and damaged clothing following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting that the physical treatment goals were not being met and preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's.

Claims for transportation and clothing were dismissed for lack of evidence.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The Appellant appealed an arbitration decision denying his claim for Botox injections and limiting his attendant care benefits following a 2003 motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal regarding the Botox injections, finding no error of law in the Arbitrator's weighing of the medical evidence.

However, the Delegate found two errors of law in the Arbitrator's assessment of attendant care benefits: mischaracterizing hygiene cuing as housekeeping, and incorrectly interpreting section 16 of the Schedule to deny meal preparation assistance simply because the Appellant's wife performed that task prior to the accident.

The Delegate varied the order, increasing the Appellant's monthly attendant care benefits by $500.

The applicant, a police officer, was convicted of attempted murder after shooting a person on a streetcar.

He brought a constitutional challenge against the five-year mandatory minimum sentence for attempted murder with a restricted firearm under s. 239(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, arguing it violated ss. 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate given the high moral blameworthiness of the applicant's conduct, nor was it overbroad in its application to police officers.

This case concerns the sentencing of Police Constable James Forcillo for attempted murder.

The court first addressed a constitutional challenge to the mandatory minimum punishment of five years for attempted murder under s.239(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, finding it did not infringe ss.12 or 7 of the Charter.

The sentencing judge then determined the appropriate sentence, rejecting the defence's submission that Forcillo's moral blameworthiness was low due to a misperception.

The court found that Forcillo acted contrary to his training by shooting a potential threat and failing to use de-escalation, constituting a high level of moral blameworthiness and an egregious breach of trust.

Despite mitigating factors such as positive personal characteristics and the impact of protective custody, the aggravating factors, including the abuse of authority and the serious actual harm caused, substantially outweighed them.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence.

A sentence of six years in the penitentiary was imposed.