Dr. Stephenson

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental and behavioural disorder following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not credible, noting significant inconsistencies between his testimony, pre-accident medical records, and surveillance video showing him performing activities he claimed he could not do.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his psychological impairments and functional limitations were caused by the accident, as he had significant pre-existing conditions and was completely disabled prior to the accident.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The accused was charged with murder and raised the defence of insanity.

At trial, Crown psychiatrists testified that the accused was sane, having changed their initial opinions after misinterpreting a Supreme Court of Canada decision.

The trial judge instructed the jury that 'appreciating' and 'knowing' in s. 16(2) of the Criminal Code had the same meaning.

The accused was convicted, but the Court of Appeal set aside the conviction and found him not guilty by reason of insanity.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, holding that 'appreciating' and 'knowing' have distinct meanings, and the jury was misdirected based on the experts' erroneous understanding of the law.