Dr. Peter Stenn

3 total

BS

Brendan Sheehan

17 cases2020–2023

TM

Tyler Moore

OLAT0 cases2022–2026

OLATJan 17, 2023

Statutory accident benefits claim allowed in part; chronic pain assessment approved but physical therapy plans denied.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for various treatment plans and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans for chiropractic and physical therapy were reasonable and necessary, as they were proposed years after the accident with little evidence of functional improvement.

However, the Tribunal approved the $2,000 chronic pain assessment, finding that the applicant's ongoing physical and psychological symptoms warranted a holistic, multi-disciplinary assessment.

Mohamed v. Aviva Insurance Company, 2023 CanLII 2697

psychology

AC

Alexandra Carr

17 cases2012–2026

FK

Freya Kristjanson

SCJ306 cases2016–2024

SCJAug 21, 2019

Summary judgment granted awarding sole custody and a permanent restraining order due to severe post-separation harassment.

The applicant mother brought a summary judgment motion seeking sole custody of the parties' child, supervised access for the respondent father, and a permanent restraining order.

The parties' relationship was marked by domestic violence, and post-separation, the respondent engaged in a severe campaign of cyber harassment and threats against the applicant, her family, her lawyers, and the judiciary.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, granted summary judgment awarding sole custody to the applicant with supervised access to the respondent, and issued a permanent restraining order.

The court also ordered the respondent to return the applicant's hard drives and destroy any copies of her personal information.

M.Y. v. G.B., 2019 ONSC 4907

Doctor · mental health and addictions · Retained by Applicant

JV

Appeal dismissed; inadequate jury instruction on contributory causation caused no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed significant neurological, psychological, and physical injuries.

At trial, the jury awarded $30,000 for general damages and $48,000 for past lost income, rejecting claims for future loss.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge failed to adequately instruct the jury on the 'material contribution' test for contributory causation.

The Court of Appeal found that while the trial judge erred in his instruction by not referring to the appellant's overall post-accident condition, the error occasioned no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice given the evidence and the jury's verdict.