Ms. Saunders

The Appellant Father appealed an order granting the Respondent Mother exclusive right to consent to ADHD medication for their child and choose treatment providers.

The appeal raised numerous alleged errors of fact and law, including the motions judge's findings on the pediatrician's recommendations, the effectiveness of medication, the father's willingness to cooperate, the interpretation of a prior communication order, the consideration of the child's views, the application of the Health Care Consent Act, and the admissibility of medical evidence.

The appellate court dismissed most grounds of appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact or errors of law, but clarified the wording of the original order to ensure the child's right to consent was preserved.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for occupational therapy and assistive devices, including an orthopaedic memory foam mattress.

The respondent partially denied the first treatment plan and fully denied the second, arguing the goods and services were not related to the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's emotional disturbances and physical injuries, including a history of osteoporosis and inability to sleep on her previous floor mat, justified the remaining occupational therapy sessions and the orthopaedic mattress.

Both treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary.