3 total
Plaintiffs met the Insurance Act threshold for permanent serious impairments following a motor vehicle accident.
The plaintiffs, a mother and son, were injured in a low-speed motor vehicle accident.
The son claimed the accident caused chronic pain syndrome and depression, disabling him from his employment as a security technician.
The mother claimed the accident caused a left shoulder impairment that prevented her from performing housekeeping and self-care.
The court found both plaintiffs met the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act, having sustained permanent serious impairments of important functions.
The court awarded damages for pain and suffering, past and future income loss, future care, and housekeeping/attendant care.
The court granted an adjournment of a personal injury trial due to the plaintiffs' late service of a significant psycho-vocational expert report.
The defendants moved to adjourn a lengthy personal injury trial arising from a 2014 motor vehicle accident, citing late service of expert reports and outstanding productions by the plaintiffs.
The court considered the principles for adjournment, including the objective of a just determination on merits and potential prejudice.
While some late reports for one plaintiff (Khadim) were not sufficient for adjournment, a recently served psycho-vocational report for the other plaintiff (Khan) indicating complete unemployability was deemed significant.
The court found that the defendants would be prejudiced if they could not adequately respond to this new evidence.
Despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trial scheduling, the motion to adjourn was granted to ensure a fair trial on the merits, vacating the fixed trial date.
Application for physiotherapy and massage therapy benefits dismissed as applicant had reached maximum medical improvement.
The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a treatment plan proposing physiotherapy and massage therapy.
The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan based on an insurer's examination.
The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement, the treatment goals were unattainable, and previous treatment had not resulted in pain reduction.
The application for benefits, interest, and costs was dismissed.