Dr. Monte Bail

The plaintiff was rear-ended in a motor vehicle accident and claimed soft tissue damages, chronic pain, anxiety, and depression.

The defendant admitted liability, and the sole issue at trial was damages.

The trial judge qualified a defence psychiatrist as an expert despite serious reservations about his methodology and independence.

The expert's testimony focused primarily on alleged inconsistencies between what the plaintiff told him and her medical records, essentially attacking her credibility rather than providing independent psychiatric assessment.

The jury awarded only general damages of $23,500 and rejected all other heads of damages.

On appeal, the court found the trial judge failed to properly discharge his gatekeeper duty by not conducting a cost-benefit analysis at the qualification stage and failed to exercise his ongoing gatekeeper function when the expert's lack of impartiality became apparent during testimony.

The appellant appealed an arbitrator's decision denying her claims for caregiver and non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate found no error of law in the arbitrator's weighing of the medical evidence, which preferred the insurer's assessments over the appellant's experts.

The Director's Delegate also rejected the argument that the arbitrator erred by allowing the appellant to proceed unrepresented, noting there was a presumption of capacity and no signs of mental difficulty that would require an inquiry under the Substitute Decisions Act.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant law firm moved for summary judgment dismissing a former client’s action for solicitor’s negligence arising from a failed motor vehicle personal injury claim.

The plaintiff alleged the lawyers mishandled the underlying litigation and caused her to lose at trial.

The court held that even if deficiencies in the lawyers’ conduct were assumed, the plaintiff could not prove that any breach caused her loss or that she lost a viable chance of success.

The evidence showed the poor trial outcome resulted from weaknesses in the plaintiff’s case rather than the lawyers’ conduct.

The plaintiff’s claim for repayment of legal fees was also barred by res judicata based on a prior court‑approved settlement of the fees dispute.

The respondent was injured in an automobile accident and, three weeks later, suffered severe burn injuries after attempting suicide by setting himself on fire.

He claimed psychological treatment expenses, which the insurer denied on the basis that the treatment related to the suicide attempt and pre-existing problems, not the accident.

An arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay, finding the accident triggered the suicide attempt.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate found no error in the arbitrator's legal analysis that a suicide attempt due to accident-related depression could be covered.

However, the appeal was allowed and the matter remitted for rehearing because the arbitrator failed to address critical gaps and contradictions in the evidence regarding the causal link between the accident and the suicide attempt.

The applicant was struck by a motor vehicle and sustained minor physical injuries.

Three weeks later, he attempted suicide by setting himself on fire, resulting in severe burns.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, claiming the suicide attempt was psychologically triggered by the motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the suicide attempt was an intervening act caused by pre-existing psychological and social issues.

The arbitrator applied the direct causation test and the thin skull rule, finding that the motor vehicle accident was a direct cause of the suicide attempt.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay for the proposed psychological treatment plan, the costs of related medical examinations, and interest on overdue payments.

The applicant, an elderly pedestrian, sustained a closed head injury when struck by a vehicle.

She claimed statutory accident benefits for care-giving services provided by her daughter and travel expenses for her granddaughter.

The arbitrator found that the accident materially contributed to the applicant's cognitive impairments.

However, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Monochino, the arbitrator held that the applicant was not entitled to care-giver benefits because her daughter did not lose income and did not qualify as a professional care-giver.

The claim for travel expenses was dismissed as the trip was not for the applicant's benefit.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits after the insurer terminated them at the 104-week mark.

The insurer argued the applicant was not substantially disabled and had misrepresented his pre-accident income and post-accident earnings.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence regarding his symptoms and finances to be highly unreliable, noting deliberate misrepresentations.

However, objective medical evidence of a large disc herniation, materially related to the accident, established that he was physically incapable of returning to the essential duties of his pre-accident employment.

The arbitrator ordered ongoing income replacement benefits and granted a $10,000 special award because the insurer had unreasonably reduced benefits earlier in the claim based solely on the applicant's receipt of unemployment insurance.