Dr. Suddaby

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her attendant care benefits and disputed treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in applying the causation test, failed to consider new impairments, made factual errors regarding her pre-accident medication, and exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering her to pay witness fees.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no significant legal or evidentiary errors that would have changed the outcome.

The adjudicator's reliance on pre-accident medical records showing chronic pain and opioid use was reasonable, and the Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction to order payment of witness fees under Rule 8.3 of the Common Rules.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision that dismissed her claims for catastrophic impairment and other benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

She argued the adjudicator made errors of law and fact and violated procedural fairness by misapprehending medical evidence and disregarding witness testimony.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that while one minor factual omission occurred regarding the cause of the applicant's mobility issues, it would not have changed the outcome.

The adjudicator concluded that the original findings regarding the applicant's pre-existing conditions, credibility, and lack of accident-related impairments were supported by the evidence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) beyond the 104-week mark, claiming a complete inability to work due to severe psychological impairments, including PTSD and psychosis.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's psychiatric evidence persuasive and concluded she met the test for post-104 IRBs.

The Tribunal also found the insurer unreasonably delayed paying the pre-104 IRB for approximately four years despite having all necessary information, and ordered a 20% award on the pre-104 IRB amount under Regulation 664.

The claim for an award on the post-104 IRB was dismissed.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident claim, the plaintiffs were awarded $5,000, a fraction of the $1.5 million claimed.

The defendant had made a Rule 49 offer of $350,000 prior to trial.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 and the impact of the Rule 49 offer.

The court fixed the plaintiffs' costs at $100,000 and the defendant's costs at $200,000, ordering the plaintiffs to pay the net costs of $100,000 to the defendant, less the amount of their judgment.

The plaintiff, Moira Caron, sued for damages following a slip and fall in her workplace kitchenette.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the defendants, as occupiers, met their positive duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act by maintaining a reasonable system of cleaning, inspection, and call service.

The court also found that the plaintiff failed to prove that her ongoing complaints and inability to return to work after January 2011 were caused by the slip and fall incident, attributing them instead to a pre-existing anxiety disorder.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a mental or behavioural disorder.

The insurer's assessors concluded she had only a moderate impairment, while her own assessors found a marked impairment in the area of adaptation.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's inability to work was too narrow a basis for finding a marked impairment in adaptation.

Considering her overall ability to cope with pain and manage daily activities, the arbitrator concluded the applicant had only a moderate impairment in all four areas of function and therefore did not meet the definition of catastrophic impairment.