Dr. Taylor

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment.

The central issue was whether the accident caused the rapid progression of the applicant's pre-existing peripheral arterial disease, which ultimately required an above-the-knee amputation.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test and found that the applicant's accident-related lack of mobility was a necessary cause of the disease's progression and the resulting amputation, thereby meeting the criteria for catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal also awarded non-earner benefits, partial attendant care benefits, costs for chiropractic treatment and catastrophic impairment assessments, and interest on overdue payments, while dismissing a claim for a home exercise program.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries from a motor vehicle accident fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied two treatment plans for assessments.

The Divisional Court held that the adjudicator made no error of law and reasonably concluded that the appellant failed to meet his burden of proving entitlement to benefits beyond the MIG cap.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused brought a pre‑trial motion challenging the language Crown expert witnesses could use when describing injuries to an infant in a criminal prosecution.

The defence objected to analogies describing the force required to cause the injuries, the use of the term “massive” for a subdural hematoma, descriptions of extensive bruising, evidence regarding the absence of any explanation for the injuries, and a graphic description of injuries to the child’s genitalia.

The court held that analogies explaining the magnitude of force could assist the jury in understanding scientific evidence and were permissible.

The term “massive” to describe the subdural hematoma was allowed as a medically accurate and understandable descriptor, and the Crown could lead evidence regarding the lack of explanation for the injuries as part of the medical history relied upon by clinicians.

However, the court directed that inflammatory wording describing genital injuries should be replaced with a more neutral description.

The appellant was convicted of second-degree murder in the drowning death of her four-year-old daughter.

On appeal, she argued the trial judge erred in admitting a paediatric pathologist's expert evidence regarding bruising and in failing to adequately instruct the jury on the included offence of manslaughter.

The Court of Appeal found no error in admitting the expert evidence but concluded the jury instructions on manslaughter were fatally flawed, as they failed to present the defence's perspective on the appellant's intent.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 week income replacement benefits.

The insurer terminated benefits, arguing the applicant continued to operate his horse farm.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered from severe chronic pain and depression, rendering him completely unable to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited, including his pre-accident work as a truck driver and farmer.

The arbitrator awarded income replacement benefits at $400 per week, interest on overdue payments, and a $25,000 special award against the insurer for unreasonably terminating benefits without sufficient medical or vocational investigation.

The appellants were convicted of various weapons offences and crimes of violence related to the collection of drug debts.

They appealed their convictions on several grounds, primarily arguing that the trial judge erred in his instructions to the jury regarding reasonable doubt, the segregation of evidence, the adequacy of the Vetrovec warning for unsavoury witnesses, and the position of the defence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeals, finding no reversible errors in the jury charge.

However, the sentence appeals for three of the appellants were allowed, as the trial judge failed to adequately consider the principle of rehabilitation and mitigating factors, resulting in reduced sentences.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter in the shaking death of his infant son.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of the appellant's wife, who had initially lied to police and had the opportunity to commit the offence herself.

The appellant appealed the conviction based on several errors in the trial judge's charge to the jury.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made multiple errors, including improperly instructing the jury on circumstantial evidence, misdirecting them on how to treat the wife's evidence, and failing to properly instruct on prior acts of misconduct.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.