Dr. Silver

The applicant sought payment for various medical treatments, assessments, disability certificates, and Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from chronic pain or a psychological impairment that would remove him from the MIG.

Consequently, the claims for medical benefits and assessments were denied.

Furthermore, while the applicant may have been entitled to IRBs, he failed to provide sufficient financial records to calculate the quantum, resulting in an award of $0 per week.

The plaintiff moved for an order to permit counsel to refer to audio transcription files and summaries from the court reporting system in closing arguments at trial, and to provide copies to opposing counsel and the trial judge, instead of using certified transcripts.

The motion was dismissed.

The court held that certified transcripts by an authorized transcriptionist are required, citing significant difficulties in deciphering audio, time-consuming review, increased costs, and potential issues on appeal if uncertified audio recordings were used.

The court emphasized the importance of certified transcripts for the integrity of the court record and efficiency.

A citizen reported criminal activity by neighbours' sons to police, claiming she was promised confidentiality.

The police officer did not disclose that the interview was being videotaped.

The neighbours' sons were arrested, and the citizen's identity and videotaped interview were included in Crown disclosure.

The citizen was subsequently harassed and threatened by the neighbours, leading to post-traumatic stress disorder and relocation.

The trial judge found the police liable for breach of confidence and awarded general damages of $345,000, plus Family Law Act damages.

The appellants appealed, arguing the trial judge erred in finding a promise of confidentiality, that necessary elements for the claim were not established, and that damages were excessive.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings and damage award.

The plaintiff sued a police officer and the police services board for assault and negligence following a traffic stop and arrest.

The plaintiff, who was pulled over by an unmarked police car for speeding, claimed he did not realize the officer was police and alleged the arrest caused him physical soreness and severe PTSD.

The court dismissed the action, finding the officer had reasonable grounds to arrest the plaintiff for evading police and used minimal force.

The court also held that the plaintiff's alleged psychiatric injury was not foreseeable, as it stemmed from his peculiar personality structure rather than the defendants' actions.

During a medical malpractice trial, the defendants brought a motion under s. 12 of the Ontario Evidence Act seeking leave to call more than three expert witnesses.

The case involved allegations that an emergency room physician negligently failed to recognize stroke symptoms and delayed transfer for specialized care, allegedly resulting in quadriplegia.

The court considered factors relating to duplication, fairness between parties, necessity of additional expert evidence, and litigation cost.

Finding that the issues concerned only standard of care and causation and that three experts were sufficient to address them, the court concluded that allowing additional experts would create unnecessary duplication and disadvantage the plaintiffs.

Leave to call more than three medical experts was therefore refused.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage.

During a brief reconciliation attempt, they negotiated a marriage contract.

The wife intended to give the husband one-half the value of the matrimonial home, but a drafting error in the contract gave him the full value.

The husband and his lawyer noticed the error but failed to seek clarification.

At the time, the wife was suffering from undiagnosed bipolar disorder and hypomania, causing her to act recklessly.

The court found the contract void ab initio due to a lack of consensus ad idem on a fundamental term.

Alternatively, the court set aside the contract under the Family Law Act due to the wife's lack of capacity and unconscionability.

The court ordered an equalization payment, retroactive spousal support, and retroactive and ongoing child support.

The respondent was assaulted at work and claimed benefits for traumatic vertebrobasilar ischemia (TVBI).

The Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal denied the claim, preferring medical evidence that the assault did not cause TVBI.

The Tribunal later upheld its decision on reconsideration after reviewing new evidence from a co-worker.

The Divisional Court quashed the reconsideration decision as patently unreasonable.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and reinstated the Tribunal's decision, finding that the Tribunal had properly considered the evidence, resolved the conflicting medical opinions, and reached a reasonable conclusion.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal regarding whether a workplace injury caused her to suffer a traumatic brain injury.

The Divisional Court found that the Tribunal failed to explain its rejection of unchallenged sworn evidence from a co-worker regarding a second blow to the head.

The Court quashed the Tribunal's decision as patently unreasonable and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to resolve the conflicting medical opinions.

Medical negligence appeal arising from a catastrophic birth injury after an emergency Caesarean section.

The appellants challenged the trial judge's findings on negligence and causation, numerous evidentiary rulings concerning expert reports, foundational facts, discovery corrections, and cross-examination, and alleged a reasonable apprehension of bias based largely on the trial judge's handling of extreme incivility by defence counsel during a 165-day trial.

The Court of Appeal held there was ample evidence supporting the findings that no negligence was proven and that the injury was caused by a sudden placental abruption.

It further held that virtually all evidentiary rulings were correct, any errors were inconsequential, and an informed observer would not apprehend bias.

The appeal was dismissed, but the trial judgment was varied so the dismissal was without costs.