Dr. Rajka Soric

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendant brought a motion compelling the plaintiff to attend a second defence medical examination, this time with a physiatrist.

The plaintiff had already attended a psychiatric defence medical examination and argued that only one examination should be permitted.

The court held that the plaintiff was claiming both psychological and physical injuries, which are distinct areas of medical inquiry, and fairness required that the defence obtain an additional expert assessment addressing the physical injuries.

The court found minimal prejudice to the plaintiff given the absence of a scheduled trial date and the importance of the assessment to the defence case.

The motion was granted, but no costs were awarded due to ambiguity created by earlier correspondence between counsel.

The plaintiff brought a negligence action against a municipality and road construction contractors after tripping on a height differential at a crosswalk during an ongoing road reconstruction project.

The court found that the unfinished roadway created a tripping hazard amounting to a condition of non-repair under s. 44 of the Municipal Act, 2001.

The defendants failed to install temporary ramping or provide adequate warning of the vertical gap between the roadway and depressed curb.

The court rejected allegations of contributory negligence and held that all defendants were occupiers responsible for site safety under the Occupiers’ Liability Act.

Liability was apportioned 50% to the paving contractor and 25% each to the municipality and general contractor, and damages were awarded for general damages, income loss, future care, and expenses.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) after the insurer terminated them.

The insurer argued the applicant's pain complaints were not credible and lacked objective medical evidence.

The arbitrator found the applicant to be a credible witness whose testimony was corroborated by lay witnesses and medical professionals.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment and a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he is reasonably suited.

The applicant was awarded pre-104 week and post-104 week IRBs, interest, and arbitration expenses.

The applicant was injured when a vehicle backed into her in a parking facility.

She applied for and received statutory accident benefits, including housekeeping and caregiver benefits, up to January 27, 2004.

The insurer terminated these benefits based on an insurer's medical examination.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for ongoing benefits, finding that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident housekeeping and caregiving duties.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove the expenses she allegedly incurred for these services were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed ongoing income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits based on independent medical examinations and a DAC report suggesting the applicant could work.

The arbitrator found the applicant suffered significant cognitive impairments rendering him competitively unemployable, characterizing his post-accident work at his brother's video store as a sheltered workshop.

The arbitrator ordered the reinstatement of income replacement benefits at $340.53 per week and found the insurer liable for a special award for unreasonably withholding benefits by relying on flawed reports that ignored the overwhelming evidence of the applicant's disability.

The appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision dismissing his claims for income replacement benefits, medical expenses, and housekeeping benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Arbitrator had dismissed the claims primarily based on adverse credibility findings, noting inconsistencies between the appellant's reported symptoms and surveillance evidence showing him driving for extended periods.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding that the Arbitrator's factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and did not constitute an error of law.

The Arbitrator reasonably preferred the respondent's expert evidence and rejected the appellant's experts due to their reliance on the appellant's subjective and exaggerated complaints.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being struck by a van at a self-storage facility.

The insurer denied benefits, arguing the incident was not an 'accident' and the application was out of time.

The arbitrator found the incident met the Amos test for an accident and the applicant had a reasonable excuse for the delay.

The applicant was awarded income replacement benefits for a closed period, but claims for supplementary medical and housekeeping expenses were dismissed, with the arbitrator finding the housekeeping receipts were fabricated.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits, including caregiver benefits, housekeeping expenses, and the cost of an occupational therapy assessment.

The insurer denied the claims.

At arbitration, the arbitrator found that the applicant did not meet the "substantial inability" test for caregiver or housekeeping benefits, as she had returned to work and caregiving shortly after the accident with only minor residual complaints.

However, the arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay for the occupational therapy assessment, finding it was a reasonable expense and not subject to the conflict of interest disclosure provisions of section 38 of the Schedule.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle while crossing the street and claimed statutory accident benefits for income replacement, housekeeping, and travel expenses.

The insurer denied income replacement benefits after December 26, 1995, and housekeeping expenses.

At arbitration, the arbitrator found the applicant to be an unreliable historian whose testimony was contradicted by video surveillance showing him walking normally.

The medical evidence did not support the applicant's claims of debilitating physical or cognitive impairments preventing him from performing his job as a furniture assembler.

The claims for income replacement and housekeeping were dismissed, but the applicant was awarded $590 for uncontested travel expenses.

The applicant was struck by a tow-truck after a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated his weekly income replacement benefits in September 1995.

The applicant applied for arbitration, arguing he remained substantially disabled from his pre-accident employment as a gas station attendant due to physical and psychological injuries.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant was not physically disabled from working, he required psychological treatment to facilitate his return to the workplace.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant remained substantially disabled until his psychotherapy sessions concluded in March 1996, after which any residual restrictions were self-imposed or could be accommodated.

The applicant was awarded income replacement benefits for the closed period from September 1995 to March 1996.

The applicant was injured in a minor motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

She applied for arbitration, claiming she developed a chronic pain condition rendering her continuously disabled from returning to work.

The arbitrator found the applicant's credibility to be seriously questionable due to inconsistencies and denials of her physical abilities.

Relying on medical evidence that identified pre-existing degenerative disease, emotional depression, and other psycho-social factors as the primary causes of her ongoing disability, the arbitrator concluded the accident was not a significant contributing factor.

The claim for further weekly income benefits was dismissed, though the applicant was awarded her reasonable expenses of the arbitration.