Dr. Rick Zarnett

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, noting inconsistencies in her reported employment and a lack of supportive medical evidence linking her physical and psychological impairments to the accident.

Furthermore, the applicant was found non-compliant with section 33 of the Schedule for failing to provide requested employment and income documentation.

The adjudicator also dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, psychological services, and a chronic pain program, finding the applicant did not establish that the treatments were reasonable and necessary or that she suffered from accident-related chronic pain.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiff, Kelly Bainbridge, brought an undefended trial against her landlords for injuries sustained after slipping on snow and ice on the front staircase of her rental unit.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court found the defendants negligent as occupiers under the Occupiers Liability Act, based on deemed admissions and plaintiff's testimony.

The plaintiff was awarded $150,000 for general damages, $635.57 for out-of-pocket expenses, $12,000 for future care costs (cannabis), and partial indemnity costs of $36,058 plus disbursements of $11,000.80.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $2,103.34 for a physiotherapy treatment plan under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the claim.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting that previous treatments had not achieved their goals and the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was awarded.

The plaintiff slipped and fell on an icy city sidewalk, sustaining a severe proximal humerus fracture that required surgery and resulted in permanent limitations in her right shoulder.

The defendant municipality admitted liability, leaving only damages to be assessed.

The court awarded $125,000 in general damages, $64,723 for future care costs, and $2,724.26 for out-of-pocket expenses, plus a subrogated OHIP claim.

Claims for past and future income loss were dismissed as the plaintiff failed to establish a real and substantial risk of pecuniary loss.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) until the insurer terminated them, arguing his ongoing back pain was caused by post-accident weight gain rather than the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's rapid weight gain and chronic pain were a result of the accident.

Relying on the applicant's medical experts, the Tribunal concluded the applicant met both the pre-104 week test of substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment and the post-104 week test of complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The applicant was awarded ongoing IRBs with interest, and the insurer's claim for repayment of benefits was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Giuseppina Farrugia, to undergo a defence occupational therapy assessment.

The court granted the motion, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, as an occupational therapist is not a "health practitioner" under the Courts of Justice Act.

The court found the assessment necessary for trial fairness, allowing the defendants to adequately respond to the plaintiff's significant claims for damages related to loss of income and future care, which were supported by the plaintiff's own expert reports.

The court also addressed the timing of the assessment and report delivery to mitigate prejudice to the plaintiff.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, the defendants moved to compel the plaintiff to attend a defence medical examination by an orthopedic surgeon.

The plaintiff agreed to attend only if the defendants disclosed counsel’s letter of instruction to the expert.

The court held that litigation privilege protects the instructing letter at the time the examination is arranged and when the expert report is served under Rule 33.06.

However, if the party later elects to call the expert at trial, the privilege is subject to an implied waiver and the instructing letter must be produced as foundational information relating to the expert’s opinion under Rule 53.03.

The plaintiff was ordered to attend the examination without disclosure of the instructing letter at this stage.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits, following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's impairments pre-dated the accident and that she misrepresented her medical history.

The arbitrator dismissed the application, finding the applicant and her husband lacked credibility.

The evidence demonstrated the applicant had a significant pre-existing history of chronic pain and degenerative arthritis for which she was already receiving a disability pension, and she failed to disclose this history to post-accident assessors.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident involving alleged soft tissue injuries, the defendants sought leave to conduct a second defence medical examination after previously obtaining a neurological assessment before the plaintiff produced any expert reports.

The plaintiff later served orthopaedic and physiatry reports asserting permanent impairment.

The court held that trial fairness required allowing the defence an opportunity to respond to the plaintiff’s medical evidence with an examination by a physiatrist.

The court concluded that the request was not merely an attempt to match specialties and that no change in circumstances or supporting medical affidavit was necessary where the defence had not yet had an opportunity to respond to the plaintiff’s expert evidence.

The applicant, a self-employed locksmith, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2000 and received income replacement benefits (IRBs) until the insurer terminated them in 2006.

The applicant sought post-104 week IRBs, arguing he suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The arbitrator found the applicant credible and accepted that his chronic pain syndrome prevented him from working an eight-hour day on a full-time basis.

The insurer's experts failed to consider whether the applicant could sustain full-time hours in a structured employment setting.

The arbitrator also dismissed the insurer's request to set off alleged past overpayments against future IRBs, as the insurer had not followed the statutory notice and repayment scheme under section 47 of the Schedule.

The applicant was awarded IRBs of $185.00 per week from March 2006 onward.

The insurer brought a motion to stay the arbitration proceeding until the applicant attended a psychiatric assessment scheduled under section 42 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant had been injured in a motor vehicle accident and suffered from chronic pain.

The insurer requested the assessment to respond to a psycho-vocational report obtained by the applicant.

The arbitrator found that the insurer had ample opportunity to investigate the applicant's chronic pain earlier and that the late request was primarily for hearing preparation rather than adjusting the claim.

The motion was denied.