Dr. Robert Hines

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 applicant contended that pre-existing depression and anxiety, as well as a psychological impairment caused by the accident, precluded maximal recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that his pre-existing conditions or alleged psychological impairment warranted removal from the MIG, noting that his psychological symptoms were likely a recurrence of pre-existing issues exacerbated by the discontinuation of medication.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming psychological impairments that warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered an accident-related psychological impairment, preferring the evidence of the respondent's psychiatric assessor and the applicant's treating psychiatrist over the applicant's psychological assessor.

The Tribunal also found that the respondent's denial of a treatment plan was timely and compliant with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG limits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of several treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to psychological services and a driver's reintegration assessment, as medical evidence and consistent reporting supported her psychological symptoms and driving anxiety.

However, the Tribunal denied the claims for a speech language pathology assessment and treatment, finding the applicant's self-reported cognitive and communication issues were contradicted by multiple assessors who observed no such impairments.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue benefits but declined to order an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding the respondent did not unreasonably withhold or delay payment.

This case concerns a civil action brought by the plaintiffs against the Niagara Regional Police Service and individual officers for alleged negligence, assault, and breaches of their Charter rights during the execution of a search warrant.

The police conducted a dynamic entry into the plaintiffs' home, where their son, suspected of drug dealing and firearm possession, resided.

The plaintiffs claimed psychological injuries, property damage, and mistreatment during their detention.

The court found the plaintiffs' testimony lacked credibility and preferred the defendants' expert psychiatric evidence.

It concluded that the police acted reasonably and within their duties, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims for lack of compensable damage, absence of a causal connection to a breach of the standard of care, and no proven serious psychiatric injury.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered an accident-related psychological impairment, specifically an exacerbation of pre-existing depression and anxiety, which removed her from the MIG.

However, of the numerous treatment and assessment plans claimed, the Tribunal found only one psychological assessment to be reasonable and necessary, as the applicant failed to provide submissions or evidence supporting the other claims.

This decision addresses a threshold motion brought by the defendants in a motor vehicle accident claim.

The plaintiff, Barry O'Brien, sought damages for injuries sustained, including a pilon fracture of his left ankle, depression, PTSD, and an exacerbation of low back symptoms.

A jury had previously awarded general damages and past loss of income but no future loss of income.

The defendants argued that the plaintiff's injuries did not meet the 'permanent serious impairment' threshold under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, RSO 1990, c I.8, and Regulation 461/96, thereby barring his claim for non-pecuniary loss.

The court, while considering the jury's verdict, independently assessed the medical and other evidence.

It concluded that the plaintiff's left ankle fracture resulted in a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function related to his employment, substantially interfering with his ability to continue heavy labour, especially considering the future deterioration due to arthritis.

However, the court found that the impairment did not substantially interfere with most of his usual activities of daily living.

Consequently, the defence's threshold motion was dismissed.

The applicant sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) beyond the 104-week mark following a motor vehicle accident in November 2011.

The insurer had paid IRBs up to February 2015 but terminated them.

The applicant argued that the accident caused a traumatic brain injury and exacerbated her pre-existing Borderline Personality Disorder and substance abuse issues, rendering her unemployable.

The insurer argued that the applicant was already unemployable prior to the accident due to her severe mental health and addiction issues, and that the accident did not materially contribute to her impairment.

The arbitrator reviewed extensive medical records and expert testimony, concluding that the applicant's downward spiral began well before the accident.

The arbitrator found that the applicant failed to prove causation under either the 'but for' or 'material contribution' tests, as her inability to work was entirely attributable to her pre-existing conditions.

The application for ongoing IRBs was dismissed.

During a motor vehicle accident trial, the plaintiffs objected to the admissibility of a defence psychiatrist's evidence, Dr. Robert Hines.

Initially, the objection concerned Rule 53.03, but it was withdrawn based on the *Westerhof* decision.

The court then raised a concern regarding the defence's attempt to both file Dr. Hines' reports under s. 52 of the *Evidence Act* and call him as a witness, which is contrary to established case law (*Ferraro v. Lee*, *Iannarella v. Corbett*).

Despite the defence counsel's prior involvement in *Iannarella* and the court's gatekeeping role, the defence insisted on calling the witness.

The court, exercising its discretion, allowed Dr. Hines to testify but ordered his reports removed from the jury's document brief to mitigate prejudice to the plaintiffs, while reserving the issue of costs for later consideration.