Dr. Sherali Esmail

The appellant was struck by a car while riding his bicycle and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the application.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by refusing to admit a video of the accident, permitting the respondent's expert to testify beyond the scope of his report, and refusing to allow the appellant to call reply evidence.

The appeal was granted and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

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

The insurer denied several treatment plans for chiropractic services, psychological treatment, and a functional cognitive assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found that three of the four chiropractic treatment plans and the psychological treatment plan were reasonable and necessary, ordering the insurer to pay them with interest.

However, the Tribunal denied the fourth chiropractic plan as it was duplicative and lacked a home exercise progression, and denied the cognitive assessment due to a lack of evidence of significant cognitive impairment.

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.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to non-earner benefits, chiropractic services, and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's impairments were pre-existing and not caused by the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's extensive pre-accident medical history, including a prior workplace injury and chronic back pain, was the primary cause of his condition.

The Tribunal preferred the insurer's medical evidence and concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of the accident, nor were the proposed treatment and assessment plans reasonable and necessary.

The plaintiff sought certification of a proposed class proceeding against a financial institution relating to losses arising from a fraudulent investment scheme involving a tooth whitening promotion.

Earlier reasons had found that the criteria under s. 5 of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 were satisfied except for the requirement that the representative plaintiff adequately represent the class.

The court had concerns regarding the plaintiff’s health following a stroke and his ability to perform the role.

After further medical evidence was filed, including expert neurological evidence confirming no cognitive impairment, the court accepted that the plaintiff could adequately represent the class and that the litigation plan addressed communication with class members and management of damages.

The court concluded that the statutory criteria were met and certified the proceeding as a class action.

The applicant, who suffered from pre-existing secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, was injured in a motor vehicle accident.

Following the accident, his mobility rapidly declined, necessitating a wheelchair-accessible vehicle.

The insurer denied the $41,761.45 claim for vehicle modifications, arguing the decline was the natural progression of his disease.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating neurologist, finding that the trauma and subsequent hospital deconditioning materially contributed to the rapid functional decline.

The claim for rehabilitation benefits was granted.