Dr. Ogilvie-Harris

The appellants appealed a jury verdict awarding $55,000 in damages following a motor vehicle accident, arguing the assessment was inconsistent, unreasonable, and out of proportion to the injuries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no obvious inconsistency in the jury's findings.

The court held that the verdict was reasonable, as the jury was entitled to assess the plaintiff's credibility and prefer the evidence of the respondent's medical expert over the appellants' expert.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for an orthopaedic assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the orthopaedic assessment was not reasonable and necessary, as the referral came from the applicant's legal counsel rather than a medical professional, and there was no objective medical evidence of an orthopaedic injury.

The applicant's claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The insurer's request for costs was also dismissed.

The defendant estate brought a motion to limit the plaintiff to calling three expert witnesses at the upcoming personal injury trial, arguing there was considerable duplication among the proposed five experts.

The court reviewed the proposed experts and found that the functional ability assessment by one expert duplicated the range of motion testing in the in-home assessment by another.

The court permitted the plaintiff to call four experts (an orthopaedic surgeon, a future care costs evaluator, an in-home assessor, and a vocational evaluator) but excluded the functional ability expert.

The court also raised concerns about the admissibility of proposed psychiatric evidence regarding a defendant's mental capacity under the Mohan framework and requested written submissions before ruling on that issue.

Following a jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $62,500 in general damages for injuries sustained in a rear-end motor vehicle accident, the defendants brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act.

The court reviewed the medical evidence and surveillance footage, noting inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony and evidence of her ability to perform daily activities.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove her injuries substantially interfered with her usual activities of daily living.

The defendants' motion was granted, barring the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident brought a preliminary motion to exclude photographs of vehicle damage at trial.

The plaintiff argued the photographs were irrelevant since liability was admitted, and that admitting them without expert biomechanical evidence would invite unguided speculation by the jury that minor vehicle damage equates to minor injury.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the photographs were relevant to causation and admissible without expert evidence, as causation is a matter of common sense.

The court noted that a jury instruction would be given to clarify that serious injuries can still result from low-impact collisions.

The defendants, Peter Gobrail and Hardscapes Interlock Design, brought a motion to transfer their action from Barrie (Central East Region) to Brampton (Central West Region).

The plaintiff, Basil Mkalaf, opposed the transfer.

The court, applying Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and principles from Chatterson et al. v. M&M Meat Shops Ltd., found that Brampton was a "significantly better" venue.

The decision considered factors such as where the accident occurred, the residence of parties and witnesses, and the convenience of the court, outweighing the plaintiff's concerns about potential trial delays.

The motion to transfer to Brampton was granted on terms related to pre-trial scheduling.

The plaintiffs sought damages arising from a motor vehicle accident caused by an impaired driver, which resulted in the death of their infant son and injuries to the mother and two other sons.

Liability was admitted, and the trial proceeded as an assessment of damages.

The court found that the mother's physical and psychological injuries, as well as the psychological injuries of the two surviving sons, met the threshold for permanent serious impairment under the Insurance Act.

The court awarded non-pecuniary damages, past and future income loss, and Family Law Act damages for loss of care, guidance, and companionship.

The applicant, a cyclist injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought the cost of an orthopedic assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, suggesting alternative treatment (cortisone injections) based on a physiatrist's report.

The Tribunal found that the respondent failed to provide a proper medical reason for denying the assessment as required by section 38(8) of the Schedule, meaning the benefit was payable under section 38(11).

Furthermore, the Tribunal found the assessment was reasonable and necessary given the nature of the collision and the applicant's injuries.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the examination up to the $2,000 limit, plus $200 for the preparation of the treatment plan, HST, and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits, medical benefits for psychological services, chronic pain treatment, physiotherapy, and assessments, following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove her entitlement to the benefits.

The Tribunal gave substantial weight to the respondent's insurer's examination reports, noting that the applicant's self-reporting to her own experts was inconsistent with her statements to the respondent's assessors, undermining her claims of complete inability to carry on a normal life, psychological impairment, and chronic pain syndrome.

The applicant's requests for interest and a special award were also denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant had a pre-existing elbow condition that was exacerbated by the accident, preventing him from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal also found the disputed treatment plans for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and a psychological assessment to be reasonable and necessary, ordering the insurer to pay the benefits with interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to treatment plans for physiotherapy, chiropractic and massage therapy, and the cost of an orthopaedic assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to the majority of the claimed benefits, as she failed to provide sufficient evidence that the treatments and assessment were reasonable and necessary, and there was no objective evidence of an orthopaedic injury.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a $200.00 balance for a previously partially approved physiotherapy treatment plan, plus interest, because the respondent had initially approved it before Minor Injury Guideline funds were exhausted.

In a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident, the jury awarded the plaintiff general damages.

The defendants subsequently brought a threshold motion, arguing that the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary loss was barred because she failed to establish a permanent, serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function under the Insurance Act.

The court, applying the three-part Meyer v. Bright inquiry, found that while the plaintiff experienced intermittent pain, her impairment did not substantially interfere with her regular employment or most usual daily activities, considering her age and pre-accident lifestyle.

The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages.

In a civil jury trial for damages from a motor vehicle accident, the court ruled on whether a proposed jury question concerning the plaintiff's lost earning capacity should be submitted.

The court found insufficient evidence to allow the jury to reasonably calculate or quantify this loss without speculation, as there was no adduced evidence of the plaintiff's annual income before or after the accident.

Citing established jurisprudence, the court determined that a question should only go to the jury if there is "reasonable evidence" to support a judicial finding.

Consequently, the question regarding loss of earning capacity was not put to the jury.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic, psychological, and occupational therapy services following a 2006 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans and raised a preliminary issue that the plans were initially unsigned.

The Tribunal held that the insurer waived the signature requirement by failing to raise it in the initial denial letters.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the chiropractic and occupational therapy plans were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's chronic pain, though mileage expenses for the occupational therapist were excluded.

The psychological treatment plans were denied due to insufficient evidence of ongoing psychological distress and the applicant's failure to attend previously approved sessions.

Both parties appealed an Arbitrator's decision regarding statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate found that the Arbitrator breached procedural fairness by failing to provide adequate reasons for awarding attendant care, housekeeping, medical/rehabilitation benefits, and the cost of assessments.

The Delegate upheld the Arbitrator's finding that the accident caused the insured's shoulder injury and the award of income replacement benefits, but found no evidentiary basis for limiting the benefits to a three-month post-surgery period.

The Delegate also found the Arbitrator's dismissal of a special award to be self-contradictory given the finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits.

The unsupported and unreasoned portions of the decision were rescinded and remitted for rehearing.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits.

The parties settled the claims for income replacement and medical benefits, leaving only the issue of whether the applicant was entitled to a Special Award under s. 282(10) of the Insurance Act for the insurer's initial denial of benefits.

The arbitrator found that the insurer acted reasonably at all relevant times based on the medical information available, which supported a theory that the applicant's impairments were due to pre-existing degenerative disc disease rather than the accident.

The claim for a Special Award was dismissed.

Following a jury trial in a motor vehicle negligence action where liability was admitted but the jury found the accident caused no injuries, the defendant sought costs after the plaintiff’s action was dismissed.

The court considered the discretion under s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as the effect of Rule 49 offers to settle.

The court held that Rule 49.10 did not apply because the plaintiff obtained no judgment.

Applying the principle that costs generally follow the event, the court concluded there was no misconduct justifying departure from that principle, though the plaintiff’s financial circumstances were considered in assessing quantum.

The defendant was awarded partial indemnity costs and reduced disbursements in an amount the court considered fair and reasonable.

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 plaintiff sued the City of Hamilton for injuries sustained after falling into a ravine in a wooded area of a city park at night.

The court held that the lower standard of care under s. 4(1) of the Occupiers' Liability Act applied because the plaintiff was engaged in a recreational activity and had wandered off a marked recreational trail.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the City did not act with reckless disregard for the plaintiff's safety, as it had no prior knowledge of the danger and the natural hazards were obvious.

Damages were assessed provisionally.

The appellant insurer sought to appeal an arbitrator's preliminary rulings made during an arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator had excluded the insurer's surveillance evidence for failing to provide investigator notes, while allowing the respondent's expert to testify despite allegedly incomplete expert reports.

The Director's Delegate rejected the appeal, finding that it was from a preliminary or interim order that did not finally decide the issues in dispute.

The Delegate held that hearing the appeal would not produce the quickest, most just, and least expensive resolution of the dispute, and that the appeal lacked apparent strength.