Dr. Susan Pigott

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident that resulted in severe impairments, including a traumatic brain injury and hearing loss.

The respondent denied treatment plans for a laptop, Apple devices, and a Phonak Roger hearing system.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the laptop and Apple devices were reasonable and necessary as communication aids and to compensate for the applicant's working memory deficits.

The Tribunal also approved the Phonak Roger system to help the applicant isolate speech from background noise, but denied the cost of a trial/demonstration of the system as the applicant failed to provide specific submissions justifying its cost.

The plaintiff, an infant who allegedly sustained a brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion to compel her mother (the defendant driver) to be present during all of her medical appointments and assessments.

The plaintiff also sought leave under Rule 48.04(1) to bring the motion after the trial record had been passed.

The court granted leave, emphasizing the interests of justice for an infant plaintiff.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's request for the mother to be present in the examination room, finding the defence's proposal—that the mother could accompany the plaintiff and be interviewed separately, while another chaperone could be in the room—struck a reasonable balance.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision when the defendant driver failed to yield the right-of-way at an intersection.

The plaintiff suffered a mild traumatic brain injury, depression, and chronic pain, which substantially interfered with her employment and daily life.

The court found the defendant driver fully liable and his employer vicariously liable.

The court held that the plaintiff's injuries met the statutory threshold for non-pecuniary damages and awarded $100,000 in general damages, $50,000 for loss of competitive advantage, and $45,000 in Family Law Act damages.

The court also discharged the jury due to inflammatory opening statements by defence counsel.

The plaintiff suffered a severe acquired brain injury after losing control of her vehicle on a snow-covered portion of a county road.

She sued the municipality for failing to maintain the road.

The court found that the municipality breached its statutory duty under the Municipal Act by failing to plow and salt the road, which had accumulated a large snow drift.

The court rejected the municipality's statutory defences and its argument that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent for driving too fast.

The plaintiff was awarded significant damages for non-pecuniary loss, past and future income loss, future care costs, and Family Law Act claims for her parents.