Dr. Ogilvie-Harris

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in Quebec and elected to receive benefits under Quebec's public plan (SAAQ).

She applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for dispute resolution after the respondent denied treatment plans for an orthopaedic assessment, a chronic pain program, and hospital services.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish that the orthopaedic assessment and chronic pain program were reasonable and necessary, as contemporaneous medical evidence from her family doctor indicated her physical injuries had resolved.

Furthermore, the adjudicator found that the hospital services expense was reasonably available from OHIP, and the applicant had failed to take reasonable steps to seek reimbursement within the statutory time period.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing he should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological injury.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet his burden of proof, preferring the respondent's medical evidence which showed the applicant did not meet the AMA criteria for chronic pain and that his psychological testing indicated symptom over-endorsement.

As the applicant was held to the MIG, his claims for treatment plans, assessments, interest, and an award were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied various treatment and assessment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that he should be removed from the MIG due to a psychological impairment (Generalized Anxiety Disorder) and chronic pain with central sensitization.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish a psychological impairment, noting that his family doctor consistently recorded his mental health as stable and he did not attend referred group counselling.

The Tribunal also rejected the chronic pain claim, finding that the applicant did not meet the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain syndrome and that surveillance evidence showed him performing physical activities inconsistent with functional impairment.

As the injuries were deemed predominantly minor and the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved a chronic pain program and partially approved an orthopaedic assessment up to the statutory limit, but denied a physical therapy plan for lack of specific medical rationale.

Interest was awarded on the payable plans, but a claim for a special award was dismissed as the respondent's denials were found to be compliant with the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including his family doctor's clinical notes, insufficient to support his claims, noting significant gaps in reporting pain or psychological issues.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded the injuries were soft-tissue in nature and treatable within the MIG.

The application for disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to a pre-existing back condition, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition precluding recovery within the MIG, largely due to non-compliance with production orders.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's in-person medical assessments over the applicant's virtual assessments, concluding the applicant did not suffer from chronic pain or a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to non-earner benefits and various treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports which found no compelling evidence of chronic pain or a psychological condition.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain syndrome, psychological impairments, and pre-existing conditions including depression and drug addiction.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological condition precluding recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the in-person assessments of the respondent's experts over the virtual assessments of the applicant's experts.

The application was dismissed, with the applicant entitled only to any remaining funds within the $3,500 MIG limit.

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) and the funding limit was exhausted.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain, relying on an orthopaedic report.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor sprains and strains, giving little weight to the applicant's expert report as it was based on subjective questionnaires over the phone.

Preferring the respondent's physiatry report based on an objective physical examination, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not demonstrate chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the application for further treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing that her chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, as her chronic pain claims lacked objective medical corroboration and her psychological claims were inconsistent with her self-reported functionality to other assessors.

The adjudicator concluded that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limits.

Because the MIG limits were already exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that his accident-related impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that the adjudicator erred in law and fact by failing to properly consider medical evidence, including MRI results and clinical notes, regarding his chronic pain and physical impairments.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate his case and reweigh evidence already considered.

The Tribunal concluded that no error of law or fact was made that would have led to a different result.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans for physiotherapy, an orthopaedic assessment, and a chronic pain assessment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that a lumbar disc protrusion and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish non-minor physical impairments or chronic pain, noting the lack of an in-person physical examination by the applicant's assessor and the respondent's assessor's findings of normal range of motion.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, an award, or interest.

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 argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish that her pre-existing degenerative changes precluded maximal recovery under the MIG.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment, finding no accident-related psychological impairment, and rejected the applicant's claim of chronic pain due to a lack of objective medical evidence and functional impairment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were denied.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his physical, psychological, or chronic pain impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's in-person assessments over the applicant's virtual and inconsistent assessments.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and an award were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that declined to order a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 for the respondent's alleged unreasonable withholding of Income Replacement Benefits.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the issues raised regarding the adjudicator's assessment of expert evidence and the respondent's conduct were questions of fact or mixed fact and law, not extricable questions of law.

The court concluded there was ample evidence to support the adjudicator's factual findings.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying an award for the respondent's alleged unreasonable withholding of income replacement benefits and costs.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in relying on the respondent's expert testimony and failing to consider the applicant's overall condition.

The Tribunal found no material error of law or fact that would have changed the outcome, noting that the respondent appropriately adjusted the claim and reasonably relied on its medical assessors.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to an orthopaedic assessment.

The applicant argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness and made errors of fact by failing to review an expert's qualifications via a URL link in a submitted report.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the applicant had an opportunity to address the expert's qualifications in reply submissions.

The Vice-Chair also found no error of fact, noting it is not the adjudicator's role to access documents not properly submitted or referenced in accordance with Tribunal orders.

The defendant brought a motion under section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 33.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to compel the plaintiff to attend a fourth defence medical examination, this time with a physiatrist.

The plaintiff had already attended examinations with an orthopaedic surgeon, a psychiatrist, and a neurologist.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant's orthopaedic surgeon had already provided extensive commentary and rebuttal to the plaintiff's physiatrist's report, and the defendant failed to provide sufficient evidence explaining why a further examination by a physiatrist was necessary to ensure trial fairness.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a physiotherapy treatment plan and the balance of a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the physiotherapy treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's expert who conducted an in-person examination and concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal also denied the balance of the psychological assessment, preferring the respondent's expert who provided a more detailed and specific description of the time and cost necessary for the assessment.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award were denied.

The plaintiff suffered a severe quadriceps rupture after slipping and falling on a poorly lit, defectively designed stairway at a Sandals resort in Saint Lucia.

The court applied Saint Lucian law to determine liability, finding the resort breached its duty of care as an occupier.

The plaintiff was found 25% contributorily negligent for descending the stairs in the dark.

Applying Ontario law for the quantification of damages, the court awarded general damages, future care costs, and special damages, rejecting the defendants' arguments that the plaintiff's pre-existing osteoarthritis or a subsequent re-injury broke the chain of causation.