Dr. Pilowsky

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain syndrome and psychological impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including his family doctor's clinical notes, insufficient to support his claims, noting significant gaps in reporting pain or psychological issues.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded the injuries were soft-tissue in nature and treatable within the MIG.

The application for disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) reconsideration decision that denied his claim for catastrophic impairment benefits following a 2006 motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the LAT erred in law by ignoring or mischaracterizing medical evidence and violating procedural fairness by relying on hearsay medical records.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LAT properly weighed the evidence, gave cogent reasons for its findings, and correctly applied the law.

The court noted that the appellant's arguments amounted to questions of mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under section 11(6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to a pre-existing back condition, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition precluding recovery within the MIG, largely due to non-compliance with production orders.

The Tribunal also preferred the respondent's in-person medical assessments over the applicant's virtual assessments, concluding the applicant did not suffer from chronic pain or a psychological impairment caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to non-earner benefits and various treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports which found no compelling evidence of chronic pain or a psychological condition.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The applicant argued that her physical and psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG, relying on a psychological assessment and clinical notes.

The Tribunal found that the physical injuries were minor and that the psychological symptoms did not rise to the level of an impairment precluding treatment within the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and an award were dismissed.

Following a nine-day jury trial where no damages were awarded to the plaintiffs for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident, the court ruled on the threshold issue and costs.

The jury found the accident did not cause or contribute to the plaintiffs' ongoing pain and impairments.

The court, granting the defendants' motion, determined that the plaintiffs' claims for non-pecuniary loss were barred under section 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, as their injuries did not meet the "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function" exception.

The court emphasized that the jury's finding on causation was binding.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $111,614.65, despite the plaintiffs' adverse cost policy and financial hardship claims, due to their failure to make an offer to settle.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment from a 2006 automobile accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by mischaracterizing evidence, failing to give sufficient weight to his testimony, and violating procedural fairness by relying on hearsay medical records over live testimony.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding the Tribunal properly weighed contemporaneous documentary evidence over unreliable testimony and that the applicant's procedural fairness rights were not violated as he had the opportunity to test the hearsay evidence but chose not to.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment from a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness by relying on hearsay evidence from medical reports and erred in finding his expert witness recanted his opinion.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as the hearsay evidence was only one of many factors considered and the applicant had the opportunity to cross-examine on it.

The Tribunal also found no error regarding the expert witness, who admitted during cross-examination that his opinion was inaccurate because he had not reviewed crucial medical records that contradicted the applicant's self-reports.

The appellant sought to appeal and judicially review two decisions of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding her application for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The LAT had stayed her application and subsequently dismissed it because she refused to attend a reasonably necessary section 44 psychiatric insurer examination.

The Divisional Court heard the judicial review and appeal concurrently.

The court found the LAT's decisions were reasonable, as the insurer had made efforts to accommodate the appellant's requests for a virtual assessment with a female clinician, but the appellant still refused to attend.

Finding no error of law or breach of procedural fairness, the court dismissed both the appeal and the application for judicial review.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her ongoing income replacement and psychological benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

She argued she was denied procedural fairness because the insurer's psychological expert did not produce raw test data until mid-hearing, and that the LAT erred in finding the insurer made 'best efforts' to produce the file.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no denial of procedural fairness as the appellant had sufficient time to review the data during a five-week adjournment and cross-examine the expert.

The Court also found the LAT applied the correct legal test for 'best efforts'.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the jury awarded $40,000 in non-pecuniary damages, the defendant brought a threshold motion to dismiss the claim.

The court analyzed whether the plaintiff's soft tissue injuries, TMJ dysfunction, and psychological issues were caused by the accident and constituted a permanent serious impairment.

The court found that only the whiplash injury was caused by the accident, while the TMJ and psychological issues were pre-existing or unrelated.

The court concluded that the whiplash injury, although permanent, was not a serious impairment as it did not substantially interfere with the plaintiff's usual activities.

The threshold motion was granted and the claim for non-pecuniary damages was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and denied his claim for income replacement benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator ignored relevant caselaw, failed to declare the Minor Injury Guideline of no force and effect, misapplied the 'but for' test for causation, and erred in preferring the respondent's psychological expert over his own.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness or errors of law.

The constitutional challenge lacked required notice, the causation test was correctly applied to find dizziness was pre-existing, and the adjudicator was entitled to prefer the in-person expert assessment over a telephone-based report containing factual errors.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a physiotherapy treatment plan and the balance of a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the physiotherapy treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's expert who conducted an in-person examination and concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal also denied the balance of the psychological assessment, preferring the respondent's expert who provided a more detailed and specific description of the time and cost necessary for the assessment.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming costs for an orthopaedic assessment, a functional abilities evaluation, and psychological treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, relying on its own independent medical examinations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the orthopaedic assessment and psychological treatment were reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's ongoing chronic pain and psychological symptoms, which were exacerbated by the accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for the functional abilities evaluation, finding it redundant given the orthopaedic assessment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award, finding the insurer did not unreasonably withhold or delay payments.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the jury notice in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision, citing delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered the factors for striking a jury notice before trial, including local court resources, the age of the case, and prejudice to the parties.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a just cause or compelling reason to strike the jury notice at this time.

The motion was dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendant.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on pre-existing degenerative disc disease, chronic pain, and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove that his pre-existing condition precluded recovery within the MIG, or that he suffered from accident-related chronic pain or psychological injuries.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the application for further benefits, interest, and a special award was dismissed.

The respondent father brought a motion for access to his child after the applicant mother unilaterally terminated his regular access in January 2020, alleging violence and abuse.

The court found the mother's allegations lacked independent evidentiary support and that her termination of access was improper and vindictive.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted a temporary order for graduated access, beginning with alternate Sundays and progressing to alternate weekends, along with weekly telephone access.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision denying an attendant care benefit and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erroneously decided the attendant care issue after it was withdrawn, relied improperly on hearsay evidence to make adverse credibility findings, and made factual errors regarding medical causation.

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration in part, amending the decision to remove the order regarding the attendant care benefit, as the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to decide the withdrawn issue.

However, the Vice-Chair upheld the remainder of the decision, finding the evidence was properly considered for the remaining issues, the applicant had waived procedural fairness concerns by consenting to a written hearing, and the Tribunal's factual findings were supported by the evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for medical treatments and examinations following a 2011 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing that the applicant's impairments were related to pre-existing degenerative conditions and a subsequent 2017 accident, rather than the 2011 accident.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and found that the applicant failed to prove the 2011 accident was a necessary cause of his impairments.

The Tribunal relied on the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence of injury, the applicant's extensive pre-existing health history, and surveillance evidence that contradicted the claimed impairments.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including costs for a catastrophic impairment assessment, chiropractic treatment plans, and a psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary, noting the minor nature of the physical injuries, the applicant's return to work and daily activities, and the unreliability of the applicant's medical reports.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, with no interest or special award payable.