Dr. West

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a psychological assessment and physiotherapy services.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 cap under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to prove her chronic pain, fibromyalgia, and psychological impairments were caused by the accident or removed her from the MIG.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was denied the claimed benefits, interest, and costs.

The applicant sought payment for a neurocognitive assessment, a psychological assessment, and various other expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the neurocognitive assessment was reasonable as it was intended to help the applicant decide whether to bring a claim for catastrophic impairment, but capped the payable amount at $2,000 plus tax.

The claims for the psychological assessment and other expenses were dismissed, as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary, and the medical evidence provided by the applicant was found to be inconsistent and lacking credibility.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, medical, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the accident was not severe enough to cause the impairments.

The Arbitrator found that the applicant's shoulder tear was caused by the accident and required surgery.

The Arbitrator awarded income replacement, housekeeping, and attendant care benefits for a fixed period surrounding the surgery and recovery, as well as medical benefits and costs of examinations.

The claim for a special award was dismissed because the insurer's initial denial was based on inconclusive evidence at the time.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination that he suffered a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder, as well as entitlement to attendant care benefits.

The arbitrator applied the three-stage test from Pastore v. Aviva Canada Inc. and found that the accident materially contributed to a cognitive disorder that significantly impaired the applicant's daily life.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant had a marked impairment in concentration, persistence, pace, and work adaptation, meeting the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator awarded a monthly attendant care benefit of $3,036.82, finding the applicant required some supervisory care but not the constant supervision claimed.

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.

The appellant was convicted of manslaughter in the death of his infant daughter, who died from extensive intracranial bleeding.

The Crown alleged the death was caused by severe shaking, supported by extensive expert medical testimony.

The appellant appealed, seeking to introduce fresh expert evidence from a forensic neuropathologist and arguing the trial judge erred in refusing an adjournment, admitting certain expert evidence, and instructing the jury on reasonable doubt and conflicting medical evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing the adjournment, the fresh evidence did not meet the Palmer criteria, and the jury instructions adequately conveyed the necessary legal principles.