Dr. Smith

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including attendant care benefits and various treatment plans.

The respondent denied the claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the attendant care benefits were incurred or reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessments.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the outstanding balances of several partially approved treatment plans, finding the applicant did not meet her burden to establish their reasonableness and necessity.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The plaintiff, a registered nurse, brought a medical negligence action against the defendant, a family medicine resident, alleging improper administration of a tetanus vaccination.

She claimed the injection was administered too high and too anterior on her left arm, causing immediate severe pain and a subsequent debilitating shoulder condition.

The court evaluated the standard of care for landmarking and administering intramuscular deltoid injections.

Due to the truncated nature of the text, the final determination on liability and damages is not disclosed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services, an attendant care assessment, and medication expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as medical evidence and self-reporting indicated he retained the ability to perform most daily activities, albeit with some diminished capacity.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the proposed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, relying on a physiatry report and hospital records showing no significant physical injuries.

Claims for medication were dismissed as duplicate receipts, and consequently, claims for interest and a special award were also denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, as his mental and behavioural impairments were moderate (Class 3) rather than marked (Class 4) in the domains of activities of daily living and social functioning.

However, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a post-104-week income replacement benefit, as his combined physical and psychological impairments resulted in a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

Claims for occupational therapy and attendant care were dismissed as non-catastrophic funding was exhausted.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments but denied a special award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) beyond the 104-week mark.

The insurer denied the benefit, arguing the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's accident-related chronic pain syndrome and functional impairments caused a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's chronic pain expert over the insurer's assessors.

The applicant was awarded the IRB of $600 per week and interest on overdue payments.

The appellants, a group of First Nations, appealed a Divisional Court decision that dismissed their application for judicial review.

They argued that Ontario's revocation of a forest management regulation (MNR-75) and amendments to the Environmental Assessment Act (Bill 197) breached the Crown's duty to consult and the honour of the Crown.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's decision, finding that the duty to consult does not apply to the law-making process (Bill 197) and that the revocation of MNR-75 did not give rise to a duty to consult as the alleged adverse effects were speculative and equivalent protections remained in force through other legally binding instruments.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits totaling $10,161.36 for goods and services, including an adjustable bed, massage chair, and moving costs, following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that while the applicant had been removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and suffered from chronic pain, the requested items were not reasonable and necessary.

The evidence showed the applicant already possessed similar items in good condition, and the requested items were not recommended by his chronic pain specialist.

The application was dismissed, along with claims for interest and an award.

The defendant, Kevin Rix, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, Louise Charron-Rix, to attend a defence orthopaedic assessment and to extend the time for serving the resulting report.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendant's request was made too late, three years after the plaintiff's initial expert report and just two months before trial.

The court emphasized the prejudice to the plaintiff and the risk of delaying the trial, noting that the updated medical records did not disclose new diagnoses justifying a late assessment and that the defendant had not previously asserted the necessity of such an examination.

This medical malpractice action concerned the plaintiff's claim of chronic pain resulting from the defendants' alleged negligence in treating a ruptured Achilles tendon.

The court found that while Dr. Boivin breached the standard of care by failing to properly immobilize the plaintiff's foot or refer her to a specialist, and Kingsway Health Centre was negligent in administrative follow-up, these breaches did not cause the plaintiff's injuries.

The plaintiff's own non-compliance with medical advice and delay in seeking surgery were found to be the cause of her worsened condition.

The court also found the plaintiff to be an unreliable and incredible witness regarding her injuries and financial losses.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant physician sought judicial review of a decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board, which upheld a committee's decision to issue a caution regarding his obstetrical care of a patient whose infant died.

The applicant argued the committee breached procedural fairness by rejecting his proposal for a remedial agreement and ignoring his expert's report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the board's decision reasonable, as the committee was not bound by its decision-making framework guidelines and was entitled to weigh the expert evidence using its own specialized medical knowledge.

The applicant sought medical benefits for three physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the plans, arguing the applicant could perform self-directed exercises.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain as a result of the accident, relying on the consensus of treating doctors and independent assessors.

The Tribunal concluded that the first and third treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to reduce pain and increase functionality, but denied the second plan as a duplication.

The Tribunal also admitted late-served surveillance evidence but gave it no weight, as it did not contradict the applicant's reported deterioration without treatment.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits, and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant met both the Pre-104 and Post-104 IRB tests due to chronic pain and depression preventing her from returning to her pre-accident employment as a cook, despite her part-time accommodated work at an assisted living residence.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for attendant care and medical benefits, finding the applicant independent in personal care and no longer in need of the requested assistive devices or occupational therapy.

The applicant was awarded IRBs with deductions for her part-time income, plus interest, but no special award was granted.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care benefits, and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant met both the pre-104 and post-104 week tests for IRBs due to chronic pain and depression, which prevented her from returning to her pre-accident employment as a cook.

However, the Tribunal denied the claims for attendant care and medical benefits, finding the applicant was independent in her personal care and had not utilized previously approved occupational therapy sessions.

The applicant was awarded IRBs subject to deductions for post-accident income, along with applicable interest, but no special award was granted.

The applicant, a minor, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and occupational therapy treatment plans.

The respondent insurer denied the plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as medical evidence indicated his accident-related injuries had resolved and he had returned to his activities of daily living.

The application was dismissed.

On a threshold motion under s. 267.5 of the Insurance Act, the court held that the plaintiff established permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function arising from a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The evidence supported a finding that a whiplash injury led to permanent debilitating chronic pain requiring regular injections and strong medication, notwithstanding pre-existing pain, anxiety, and depression.

The court also held that the medical report complied in substance with s. 4.3(4) of Regulation 461/96 even though it did not recite the regulation's exact wording.

The plaintiff was therefore entitled to recover non-pecuniary damages subject to the statutory deductible and the jury verdict.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict dismissing their medical negligence action arising from delayed diagnosis and treatment of an anastomotic leak following routine bowel surgery, which resulted in septic shock and bilateral below-knee amputations.

The jury found five defendants breached the standard of care but that none of the breaches caused the injuries.

The Court of Appeal addressed the proper causation test in delayed diagnosis cases involving multiple tortfeasors, finding that the trial judge's use of the word "necessary" from Clements in jury questions and instructions was problematic and that the phrase "caused or contributed to" should not have been rejected.

However, the court held that the jury clearly accepted the defence theory that a rare necrotizing infection, not the delay, caused the injuries, and no reformulation of questions or instructions would have changed the verdict.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, housekeeping benefits, and costs of examinations.

The arbitrator found that the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold for catastrophic impairment, as his psychological and chronic pain impairments were moderate rather than marked.

The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed because the applicant continued to work and his income increased post-accident, failing to meet the substantial inability test.

The claim for housekeeping benefits was dismissed as he was not catastrophically impaired.

The arbitrator awarded $2,000 for a coordinator's assessment fees but denied other examination costs.

The appellant, a commercial rabbit farmer, appealed a trial decision dismissing his counterclaim that contaminated feed supplied by the respondent caused mass mortality in his rabbit herd.

The trial judge had preferred the evidence of the respondent's expert over the appellant's expert regarding the sensitivity of rabbits to mycotoxins.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment and weighing of the expert evidence.

The Applicant sought additional post-104 Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Insurer had deducted amounts from the IRBs based on the Applicant's self-employment income reported on his tax returns.

The Applicant argued that he was not employed as defined by the Schedule and that his tax returns were incorrect.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant was self-employed during the period in dispute, as he continued to manage his rental properties and reported self-employment income on his tax returns.

The Arbitrator concluded that the Insurer correctly calculated the IRBs and dismissed the Applicant's claim for additional benefits and interest.

The corporate defendants brought a motion for the production of pre-accident clinical counselling notes and for a further independent psychiatric examination of the plaintiff, two weeks before the scheduled trial of a motor vehicle accident claim.

The court granted the production of the clinical notes, finding them highly relevant to the co-plaintiff's Family Law Act claim for loss of care, guidance, and companionship.

However, the court dismissed the request for a further psychiatric examination, ruling it unreasonable and procedurally unfair to require the plaintiff to undergo another examination on the eve of trial without evidence of a significant change in her condition.