Dr. Paul Duhamel

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff’s slip-and-fall action for failure to provide notice within ten days as required by the Municipal Act, 2001.

The plaintiff argued for an exception based on reasonable excuse and lack of prejudice to the municipality.

The court found that the plaintiff could rely on a late-served expert report for the motion, but that the admissibility of both parties’ expert evidence was not established.

The court concluded that the conflicting expert evidence on the plaintiff’s capacity and reasonable excuse created a genuine issue requiring a trial.

Both the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff’s request for reverse summary judgment were dismissed.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) and two treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, relying on multiple independent medical examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met the tests for both pre-104 and post-104 IRB, as he suffered from a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment and a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's experts, noting that the respondent's assessors evaluated the applicant in silos and failed to provide an integrated assessment of his physical and psychological impairments.

The treatment plans for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment were deemed reasonable and necessary.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed, as the respondent's conduct was not found to be unreasonable.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials in Ottawa caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to compel the injured plaintiff to attend an independent medical examination (IME) without the presence of a support person.

The court granted both motions, finding that the pandemic-related delay justified striking the jury notice to ensure timely access to justice, and that the defendants were entitled to an IME without third-party interference absent medical evidence requiring a support person.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits from the respondent insurer.

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

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing she should be excluded from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of a pre-existing condition or a psychological impairment resulting from the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed the application for benefits and interest.

The plaintiff sustained a brain injury after her bicycle struck an empty bollard housing on a municipal recreational trail.

She sued the municipality under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The court found the municipality 100% liable, holding that leaving an unpainted, unlocked, and easily removable bollard housing exposed on the trail amounted to reckless disregard for the safety of cyclists.

The court rejected arguments of contributory negligence and found the accident caused the plaintiff's post-concussion syndrome, rendering her competitively unemployable in her previous field.

Damages for past and future income loss were awarded in the amount of $737,339.72.