Stephen Bagg

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits and medical benefits from the insurer.

The arbitrator found the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment as an educational assistant and awarded pre-104 week income replacement benefits.

However, the arbitrator dismissed the claim for post-104 week income replacement benefits, finding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, as she had returned to work part-time.

The arbitrator also awarded medical benefits for assistive devices, including a soaker tub, mattress, ergonomic desk, and treadmill, but denied the claim for physiotherapy and yoga.

Following a jury verdict in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision involving a cyclist, the court addressed post-verdict issues including the statutory threshold for recovery of non-pecuniary damages, the applicable statutory deductible, and the appropriate rate of pre‑judgment interest.

The court found that the injured plaintiff established a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function under the Insurance Act threshold.

The court further held that the increased statutory deductible introduced by O. Reg. 221/15 applied to pending actions, characterizing the deductible as procedural in nature and applicable to quantification of damages.

However, the court concluded that entitlement to and quantification of pre‑judgment interest are substantive matters and therefore the amended Insurance Act provisions did not apply retrospectively.

Pre‑judgment interest was therefore calculated under Rule 53.10 until December 31, 2014 and under s. 128(1) of the Courts of Justice Act thereafter.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a physiotherapy treatment plan and an in-home assessment.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's ongoing symptoms were related to pre-existing health conditions rather than the accident.

The arbitrator found that while some symptoms were pre-existing, the accident was a significant contributing factor to the applicant's shoulder and neck pain.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay for the portion of the physiotherapy plan related to the neck and shoulders, as well as the cost of the in-home assessment.