Dr. Philip Miller

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) for the first 104 weeks.

She sought post-104-week IRBs, arguing she suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment due to cognitive and physical impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had successfully worked as a restorative aide for approximately 10 months post-accident, working full-time and overtime hours.

Relying on this work history and the preferred expert medical and vocational evidence, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The claims for IRBs, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The plaintiff, Kathleen MacNeill, sought damages for injuries allegedly sustained after ingesting a deliming agent in coffee served at a McDonald’s drive-thru.

The court found that while the incident was unsettling, the evidence did not establish that the plaintiff suffered any serious or permanent injury causally related to the incident.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s claims for general, income, and future care damages, awarding only $5,000 for temporary pain and inconvenience.

The decision turned on findings of credibility, causation, and the weight of expert and lay evidence.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for attendant care benefits, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that the expenses were incurred, including proof of cash payments to the service provider.

The Tribunal also denied treatment plans for social rehab counselling and hearing aids, concluding they were not reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal approved the remaining balance for a psychological treatment plan, deferring to the treating psychologist's recommendation for longer sessions.

The Tribunal further ordered the respondent to pay outstanding invoices for two rehabilitation support worker plans that the respondent had previously approved in full, holding that an insurer cannot partially pay a plan it has already fully approved.

Finally, the Tribunal granted a 15% special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664, finding the respondent acted unreasonably by withholding payment for the fully approved rehabilitation support worker plans while demanding further particulars.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's chronic pain and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a psychological assessment and occupational therapy treatment, plus interest on overdue payments.

The applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed, as there was no evidence the respondent unreasonably withheld or delayed payments.

The defendants moved to adjourn a lengthy personal injury trial arising from a 2014 motor vehicle accident, citing late service of expert reports and outstanding productions by the plaintiffs.

The court considered the principles for adjournment, including the objective of a just determination on merits and potential prejudice.

While some late reports for one plaintiff (Khadim) were not sufficient for adjournment, a recently served psycho-vocational report for the other plaintiff (Khan) indicating complete unemployability was deemed significant.

The court found that the defendants would be prejudiced if they could not adequately respond to this new evidence.

Despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trial scheduling, the motion to adjourn was granted to ensure a fair trial on the merits, vacating the fixed trial date.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment plans for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the medical evidence, including the applicant's own orthopaedic assessment, established that the injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries.

The applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing medical condition or psychological impairment that would remove him from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and the application was dismissed.

The court determined pre-judgment interest and costs following a jury verdict in a personal injury action.

Pre-judgment interest on general damages was reduced from 14 to 10 years due to plaintiff-occasioned delays.

The applicable rate for past loss of income was confirmed at 2.8%.

Plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs to December 8, 2015, and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, totaling $727,290.00.

The defendant Upright, having made a better offer than the jury verdict, was awarded partial indemnity costs of $210,000.00 from the defendant Janandee.

The plaintiffs' costs were apportioned between the defendants based on their respective liability findings (Janandee 94%, Upright 6%).

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident while riding his bicycle.

The insurer paid income replacement benefits for 104 weeks but terminated them, arguing the applicant did not meet the more stringent test of complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The arbitrator found the applicant, who was functionally illiterate in English and had a history of heavy physical labour, suffered from chronic pain and psychological impairments caused by the accident.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's expert evidence that the applicant was malingering, finding instead that he was completely disabled from working.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits.

However, his claim for a multidisciplinary pain management program was dismissed as he failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary, given a previous similar program had not yielded further recovery.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 1997 and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them in November 1997 based on early medical opinions.

The applicant applied for arbitration, claiming ongoing entitlement to income replacement benefits due to cognitive, psychological, and physical impairments.

The arbitrator found that the applicant sustained impairments as a result of the accident and met the tests for both substantial inability within the first 104 weeks and complete inability thereafter.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant, his family, and his medical-legal experts over the insurer's experts.

The insurer was ordered to pay ongoing income replacement benefits, interest from the date the applicant's counsel first contacted the insurer in 2001, and a $5,000 special award for unreasonably failing to reinstate benefits after receiving further medical evidence of disability.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits for 104 weeks.

The insurer terminated benefits, and the applicant sought ongoing income replacement, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment due to physical injuries, but did suffer such an inability due to psychological complications (severe depression and anxiety) until her condition stabilized.

The arbitrator awarded income replacement benefits for a closed period.

The claims for attendant care and housekeeping expenses were dismissed because the applicant failed to prove she incurred a cost or obligation to pay her husband for those services.