Dr. Peter Rumney

Following a trial, the offender was convicted of attempted murder and breaching a recognizance for brutally assaulting a five-year-old child and leaving him for dead in an isolated area.

The Crown applied for a dangerous offender designation under section 753(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the dangerous offender application, finding that while the conduct was undoubtedly brutal, the psychiatric evidence did not compel the conclusion that the offender's future behaviour would be unlikely to be inhibited by normal standards of behavioural restraint.

However, the court imposed a life sentence based on the extreme brutality of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, the breach of trust, the premeditated nature of the crime, and the offender's high risk of violent reoffending as established by actuarial assessment.

The court declined to impose a parole eligibility delay under section 743.6, finding that a life sentence adequately addressed the sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence.

The applicants, parents and trustees of a trust established for their son following a serious brain injury, applied to pass their accounts.

The trust received $418,675.25 over 17 years, but the trustees administered it entirely in cash and lacked receipts for most disbursements.

The court found that the trustees failed to keep proper records and included fictitious loans and unpaid services in the accounts.

While some expenses were allowed, the trustees failed to account for $165,531.14.

After deducting $15,000 for trustee compensation, the court ordered the trustees to repay $150,531.14 to the trust.

The defendant brought a motion under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act seeking an order requiring the minor plaintiff to attend a psychological assessment by a defence expert following a motor vehicle accident in which the plaintiff alleged traumatic brain injury and psychological impairments.

The plaintiffs argued the request amounted to an impermissible second defence medical examination and alleged concerns regarding the proposed expert’s impartiality.

The court held that further medical examinations may be ordered where necessary for trial fairness and where the proposed assessment involves different expertise from prior examinations.

Considering the plaintiff’s extensive expert evidence and the importance of expert testimony for a young child’s injuries, the court found the further assessment justified.

The court ordered the minor plaintiff to attend the psychological assessment and required the child’s mother to attend and participate in the interview.

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.

The applicant, who was 17 years old and expelled from school at the time, suffered a serious brain injury in a motor vehicle accident.

He applied for a non-earner benefit, which the insurer disputed.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life immediately following the accident, as his participation in activities was tempered by the effects of medication and his injuries.

However, by September 2002, the applicant had ceased taking the medication, resumed his pre-accident social life, and demonstrated independence, returning to a trajectory consistent with his pre-accident potential.

The arbitrator awarded the non-earner benefit for the period from September 18, 2001, to August 31, 2002, along with interest on overdue payments.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident, sustaining a severe closed-head injury and spinal fractures.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, including education disability benefits (EDBs).

The insurer terminated his weekly EDBs and paid one lump sum EDB.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was entitled to a further lump sum EDB for the January 1996 semester because he was unable to successfully complete it as a result of the accident.

The arbitrator also found that the applicant was entitled to weekly EDBs from March 1996 to August 1997 because he suffered a substantial inability to continue his education and a partial inability to carry on a normal life, specifically regarding mobility and cognitive activities.