Dr. Singh

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

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and raised a preliminary issue that the application should be barred due to the applicant's failure to attend insurer examinations.

The Tribunal found the notice of examination was non-compliant, so the application was not barred.

However, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional impairment.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, keeping him subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, and the application for additional treatment plans and an award was dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found that the insured's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and awarded treatment plans, interest, and a 30% award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The insurer argued that the adjudicator erred in fact and law by preferring the evidence of the insured's medical assessor over its own, by finding the insured suffered from chronic pain, and by granting the award.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, holding that the adjudicator made no errors of fact or law but rather properly exercised their jurisdiction to weigh the conflicting medical evidence.

The Tribunal noted that a reconsideration is not an opportunity to re-litigate a party's position or challenge the weight assigned to evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to radiculopathy, psychological impairments, chronic pain, and pre-existing conditions.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's s. 44 assessors' evidence over the applicant's experts, noting a lack of objective medical evidence supporting radiculopathy, psychological impairment, or chronic pain.

As the disputed treatment plans proposed treatment outside the MIG, the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits and medical/rehabilitation benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting inconsistencies between his reported impairments and his actual function, such as continuing to work in excavation and playing hockey.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant did not provide compelling evidence to justify removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule after being removed from the Minor Injury Guideline.

The insurer denied treatment plans for a cognitive assessment, chiropractic and massage treatments, and the remaining cost of a partially approved psychological assessment.

The Tribunal found the cognitive assessment and physical treatments were reasonable and necessary given the applicant's reported concussion symptoms and ongoing chronic pain.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for the remaining cost of the psychological assessment, finding the applicant failed to prove why the additional time and cost were necessary beyond the insurer's partial approval.

Paul Rousselle appealed his conviction for aggravated assault on a four-month-old infant, Baby L., arguing that the trial judge's reasoning was illogical or irrational.

The medical evidence indicated Baby L. suffered injuries consistent with shaking.

Rousselle had initially denied involvement but later confessed to police and his partner that he shook the baby out of frustration when she wouldn't stop crying.

At trial, he recanted, claiming he lied to police to protect his own child from child protective services.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's decision to accept Rousselle's confessions while rejecting his claims of gentle force was logical and rational, supported by the medical evidence and the circumstances of the confession.

The court also upheld the admission of evidence regarding Rousselle's prior angry reaction to a video game interruption, finding it relevant to his state of mind and not unduly prejudicial.

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.