Dr. Muhlstock

During a jury trial for a personal injury action arising from a motorcycle collision, the defendant brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act.

The defendant sought a declaration that the plaintiff's claims for healthcare expenses and non-pecuniary losses were barred.

The court evaluated medical and lay evidence regarding the plaintiff's mild traumatic brain injury and post-concussion syndrome.

The court found that while the plaintiff could still work with accommodations, her impairments significantly disrupted her activities of daily living and social life.

The motion was dismissed, as the plaintiff established she sustained a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

At a case conference and pre-trial for a motor vehicle accident personal injury claim proceeding under the Simplified Rules, the court addressed whether the trial could be completed within the allotted five days.

The plaintiff had initially proposed a witness list that exceeded the time limit.

After the plaintiff reduced her witness list, the court imposed a strict trial timetable to ensure the matter could be heard within five days, noting that the plaintiff chose the Simplified Rules and must bear the burden of fitting her case within its constraints.

The plaintiff appealed an order of an Associate Judge requiring her to attend in-person defence medical examinations with a physiatrist and a neuropsychologist.

The plaintiff had refused to attend due to fears of contracting COVID-19.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the Associate Judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding that the in-person examinations were necessary and that the assessment facility's COVID-19 safety protocols were adequate.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend in-person physiatry and neuropsychology defence medical examinations.

The plaintiff objected to the in-person physiatry examination due to COVID-19 concerns and her compromised health, and objected to the neuropsychology examination arguing she had not put her cognitive state in issue.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend both examinations in person, finding that adequate COVID-19 safety protocols were in place at the assessment facility and that the plaintiff's pleadings and medical reports had put her neurocognitive condition in issue.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits for chronic pain treatment and physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's medical evidence lacked precision and failed to link the proposed treatments to the accident or demonstrate how they would improve his function.

Relying on the respondent's medical assessors, who concluded the applicant's injuries had resolved, the Tribunal held the treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The claim for a chronic pain assessment was also dismissed because the applicant failed to submit the required Treatment and Assessment Plan (OCF-18).

The application was dismissed in its entirety.