Dr. Rockman

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to attendant care benefits, various treatment plans, and a special award.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the majority of the claims, finding that the applicant failed to prove the expenses were reasonable and necessary or incurred.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, which found the applicant independent in her activities of daily living and lacking neurological impairment.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's claim for a driving assessment due to undisputed vehicular anxiety, along with applicable interest.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments that fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries warranted treatment beyond the $3,500 MIG cap.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, noting symptom magnification and a lack of validity testing in the applicant's psychological assessment.

All claims for medical benefits, assessments, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant municipality sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision granting loss of earnings benefits to a firefighter who was terminated for cause but subsequently diagnosed with work-related post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Tribunal applied the 'worker conduct' line of cases, finding that the worker's condition rendered him unemployable and that his loss of earnings resulted from the compensable injury rather than his termination.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation of section 43 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and its assessment of the medical evidence were reasonable.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 income replacement benefits (IRBs) due to psychological impairments.

The respondent terminated IRBs based on insurer examinations suggesting the applicant could work in alternative roles or teach yoga.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from severe depression and anxiety that prevented her from maintaining regular attendance or performing duties in a competitive, real-world setting comparable to her pre-accident career as a mental health consultant.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the post-104 IRBs with interest, but dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding insufficient evidence of unreasonable conduct by the insurer.

The applicant, a self-employed real estate agent, sought dispute resolution for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal determined the applicant's weekly income replacement benefit (IRB) must account for passive income earned from real estate deals closing during the disputed periods, awarding $2,685.71.

The Tribunal denied the claims for a $2,900 psychological assessment and $1,320.77 for psychological treatment, finding them not reasonable and necessary as previous approved treatments were not utilized and the treatment plan included impermissible administrative costs.

Interest was awarded on the overdue IRB, but a claim for an award under Regulation 664 was dismissed.

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

The insurer denied treatment plans for chiropractic and psychological services, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that while the physical injuries were predominantly minor, the applicant demonstrated on a balance of probabilities that she sustained psychological impairments removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered payment for the psychological assessment and treatment plans, along with interest, but denied the chiropractic treatment plan as not reasonable and necessary.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury verdict awarding net general damages of $11,181.03, the court considered whether the plaintiff's injuries met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff, whose primary role was a homemaker, sustained permanent and serious impairments to important physical and psychological functions, including PTSD and depression.

The court ruled that the injuries met the threshold and dismissed the defendant's motion.

The plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained in an unprovoked assault at a banquet facility.

Three defendants were noted in default.

Following an assessment of damages hearing, the court awarded the plaintiff $125,000 for pain and suffering, $25,000 for future treatment, $2,296.87 for an OHIP subrogated claim, and $50,000 for loss of competitive advantage, totaling $202,296.87.

The court also awarded costs of $67,390.82 against the defaulting defendants.

The appellant, a police officer with 19 years of service, appealed a penalty of immediate dismissal imposed after he pled guilty to seven counts of insubordination and one count of neglect of duty.

The misconduct involved over 100 unauthorized CPIC checks, inappropriate relationships with women known to have criminal records, and negligent administration of police duties.

The appellant argued that the Hearing Officer failed to adequately consider mitigating factors, including his personal circumstances and depression.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the Hearing Officer's decision was reasonable, properly weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, and correctly concluded that the appellant's protracted pattern of serious misconduct warranted dismissal.