Natalie Zaraska

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for an occupational therapy assessment and treatment plan.

The insurer denied the plans and raised a late defence of double payment at the hearing.

The arbitrator rejected the late defence as trial by ambush and found no actual double payment occurred.

The arbitrator concluded the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting the insurer's assessor admitted her recommendation might have differed had she received all relevant information.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay for the plans, plus interest at 2% per month compounded monthly, and a special award of $5,500 for unreasonably withholding payment.

The plaintiff, a cyclist with significant pre-existing psychological and cognitive vulnerabilities, was struck by a police cruiser while riding through a pedestrian crosswalk at night.

The court apportioned liability 60% to the defendant police officer and 40% to the plaintiff.

Applying the thin skull rule, the court found the collision exacerbated the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions and caused a mild traumatic brain injury, rendering him completely disabled and requiring 24/7 attendant care.

Total damages were assessed at over $5.2 million, reduced to $3,131,370 after accounting for contributory negligence.

The plaintiffs in a motor vehicle personal injury action involving a child with an alleged brain injury sought leave under s. 12 of the Evidence Act to call more than three expert witnesses at trial.

The court considered factors governing leave to call additional experts, including necessity, duplication of evidence, fairness between parties, and proportionality.

While acknowledging the complexity of the medical issues and future care claims, the court emphasized the trial judge’s gatekeeping role and the need to avoid unnecessary or repetitive expert testimony.

Leave was granted for several experts with distinct specialties but denied for others whose proposed evidence lacked a compliant Rule 53 report or would duplicate testimony from other experts.

The court limited the number of occupational therapists who could testify and refused permission for certain proposed witnesses whose opinions were unnecessary or procedurally deficient.