Dr. Talia Dick

The applicant, who was 6 years old at the time of the motor vehicle accident, sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a Class 4 marked impairment in the domain of social functioning, relying on the applicant's psychiatric expert who linked the psychological diagnoses to the applicant's avoidance of interpersonal relationships and severe social withdrawal.

The Tribunal dismissed the claims for an assessment plan and an OCF-6 invoice as the applicant provided no evidence or submissions to support them.

The plaintiff brought an action for solicitor's negligence against his former lawyer, alleging the lawyer negligently advised him to settle his statutory accident benefits claim for an inadequate amount and failed to investigate a potential catastrophic impairment designation.

The court dismissed the action, finding that the lawyer's investigation and negotiation of the settlement met the standard of a reasonably competent lawyer given the plaintiff's need for immediate funds, poor compliance with treatment, and the risk of benefits termination.

The court also found the plaintiff failed to prove that he would have rejected the settlement or achieved a better outcome had a catastrophic impairment assessment been recommended.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding she did not suffer a catastrophic impairment following an ATV accident.

She argued the adjudicator misapplied the 'but for' test, misinterpreted her mental health history, and failed to consider the accident's effect on her employment.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the applicant was improperly attempting to reweigh the evidence.

The original adjudicator properly applied the causation test, reasonably relied on the respondent's psychiatric expert regarding the applicant's pre-existing autism spectrum disorder, and was entitled to place less weight on the applicant's psychological and occupational therapy evidence because those experts lacked critical pre-accident records.