Dr. Peter Watson

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed removal from the MIG was warranted due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment, placing little weight on his expert's diagnosis because it did not address functional limitations.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, finding no psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

The applicant insurer sought leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion to compel the plaintiff to attend three defence medical examinations and a future care assessment.

The motion judge had denied the examinations due to the insurer's failure to comply with the rules regarding the delivery of expert reports prior to pre-trial conferences.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's exercise of discretion under section 105 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a defence medical examination by a new neurologist.

A previous order had granted an examination by a different neurologist, but that expert subsequently refused to provide a report due to workload and complexity.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing it was duplicitous and could jeopardize the upcoming trial date.

The court granted the motion, finding it would be unfair to require the defendant to proceed to trial without defence medical evidence, but imposed strict deadlines for the delivery of the expert report to preserve the trial date.

The defendant Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company brought a motion seeking orders for the plaintiff to undergo several independent medical examinations (IMEs) in a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing delay and the need for leave under Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found Wawanesa did not require leave under Rule 48.04 as it had not set the action down for trial or consented to its placement on the trial list.

However, the court criticized Wawanesa's significant delay in seeking IMEs, noting its failure to list expert witnesses in pretrial briefs.

The motion for a neurological examination was granted with strict deadlines for report service, while requests for occupational therapy, otolaryngology, and psychiatric examinations were dismissed due to lack of evidence regarding their necessity or the plaintiff not relying on such evidence.

The appellant physician appealed a decision of the Discipline Committee of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which found him guilty of professional misconduct and revoked his certificate of registration.

The charges related to his conduct during a patient's unsuccessful resuscitation, his use of heavy sedation for nerve blocks, and his prescription of high-dose opioids for chronic pain patients.

The Divisional Court upheld the Committee's findings regarding the resuscitation and the use of sedation, finding them reasonable based on the evidence.

However, the Court set aside the findings related to opioid prescriptions and a toxic dose of Marcaine, concluding the Committee ignored crucial defence expert testimony and relied on a charting error.

The penalty of revocation was set aside as excessive and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted Committee.

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.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits after 156 weeks, arguing that the appellant's ongoing neuropathic leg pain was not caused by the accident.

An arbitrator dismissed the appellant's claim for ongoing benefits, preferring the medical evidence that a causal link was unlikely given the delayed onset of symptoms.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding no error in the assessment of the expert medical evidence regarding causation.

The appeal was dismissed and no appeal expenses were awarded.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in January 1991 and received statutory accident benefits until January 1995.

He subsequently developed severe neuropathic pain in his left leg and sought ongoing weekly income benefits and medical benefits.

The insurer disputed that the neuropathic condition was caused by the accident.

The arbitrator reviewed extensive medical evidence and testimony, noting a significant time lag between the accident and the onset of the leg pain.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident caused the neuropathic condition.

Consequently, the claims for ongoing benefits were dismissed.

The insurer's claim for repayment was also dismissed, and the applicant was awarded his arbitration expenses.