Dr. Peter Rowsell

The appellant was injured in a 1993 motor vehicle accident and sought rehabilitation and attendant care benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims, finding the appellant failed to establish that the accident materially contributed to her physical, cognitive, and psychological conditions, largely due to a lack of pre-accident medical records and reliable evidence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the arbitrator erred by admitting insurer medical reports without cross-examination and by misapplying the burden of proof.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, holding that the failure to cross-examine does not compel acceptance of an expert's report and that the burden of proving causation remained on the appellant.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for rehabilitation and care services following a 1993 motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's pervasive physical, cognitive, and psychological conditions were not caused by the accident.

The arbitrator dismissed the applicant's claims, finding she failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident materially contributed to her impairments.

The arbitrator noted a complete absence of pre-accident medical records, relying solely on the applicant's unreliable self-reporting, and drew an adverse inference from her failure to call pre-accident treating physicians or lay witnesses to corroborate her pre-accident health and functional abilities.

The appellant appealed his conviction for second degree murder, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting post-hypnosis identification evidence, failed to properly instruct the jury on eyewitness identification and alibi evidence, and delivered an unbalanced charge that favoured the Crown.

The Court of Appeal found that while the post-hypnosis evidence was properly admitted, the trial judge committed serious errors in his jury instructions regarding the frailties of the identification evidence and the requirements for finding a fabricated alibi.

Furthermore, the jury charge lacked fairness and balance, compromising the appellant's right to a fair trial.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The applicant sought interim income replacement and medical-rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer had terminated benefits, and the parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation.

The arbitrator found that the applicant established a probable case for entitlement to income replacement benefits and demonstrated financial urgency, awarding partial interim income replacement benefits at $235.74 per week.

The arbitrator also awarded interim benefits for housekeeping and transportation to medical appointments, but denied other requested medical and rehabilitation expenses, finding they were either past expenses or not urgently required.

The issue of a special award was reserved for the main arbitration hearing.