Sarah Macrae

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment (traumatic brain injury) in a 2012 motor vehicle accident, sought $97,398.08 for home modifications.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was partially entitled to the modifications, specifically bilateral handrails on stairs and releveling of front steps, to address his ongoing intermittent dizziness and fall risk.

Requests for a curb-less shower, deck, and private therapy room were denied as not reasonable or necessary.

The Tribunal awarded interest on overdue benefits but dismissed the applicant's claims for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 and costs under Rule 19.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming the balance of a treatment plan for a hot tub and attendant care benefits.

The Tribunal found the hot tub was reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's accident-related chronic back pain and mobility limitations, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating occupational therapist over the insurer's assessors.

However, the claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide evidence that the expenses were actually incurred, as required by the Schedule.

Following an unsuccessful personal injury jury trial arising from an automobile collision, the court determined the defendant's entitlement to costs.

The plaintiff recovered nothing and the threshold declaration under the Insurance Act barred non-pecuniary and health care claims.

The court held that none of the parties' settlement offers engaged Rule 49.10, and the plaintiff's conduct, while hard-fought, was not reprehensible so as to justify elevated costs.

Applying the costs factors, indemnity principles, and proportionality, the court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs of $75,000 plus disbursements of $35,638.18.

In a personal injury action, the defendants sought an order compelling the plaintiff to attend an occupational therapy assessment to address alleged functional limitations and future care costs.

The plaintiff opposed the request, arguing that two defence medical examinations had already occurred and that any occupational therapy assessment should be limited to an interview.

The court considered its jurisdiction under s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and the developing jurisprudence permitting assessments by non-medical practitioners where reasonably required.

Given that the plaintiff intended to rely on an occupational therapist’s future care cost analysis at trial, fairness required that the defence be permitted to obtain its own functional assessment.

The court concluded that the requested examination, including physical functional testing, was necessary and not unreasonably intrusive.