Dr. William Gnam

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries were catastrophic.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, noting she had returned to work shortly after the accident, retrained for a more physically demanding job, and was observed on surveillance performing activities she claimed she could not do.

The arbitrator preferred the insurer's expert evidence over the applicant's, concluding the applicant failed to prove her injuries were catastrophic or that the claimed attendant care and medical benefits were reasonable, necessary, and directly caused by the accident.

All claims were dismissed.

The insurer appealed an Arbitrator's decision finding that the claimant suffered a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder and awarding ongoing attendant care and housekeeping benefits.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding that the Arbitrator failed to give adequate reasons, reversed the burden of proof, and failed to fairly consider the evidence.

The medical evidence presented by the claimant did not address the criteria under the AMA Guides, and her uncorroborated evidence was insufficient to prove catastrophic impairment.

The Arbitrator's orders were revoked, and the claimant was ordered to repay interim benefits.

The plaintiff, a cyclist with significant pre-existing psychological and cognitive vulnerabilities, was struck by a police cruiser while riding through a pedestrian crosswalk at night.

The court apportioned liability 60% to the defendant police officer and 40% to the plaintiff.

Applying the thin skull rule, the court found the collision exacerbated the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions and caused a mild traumatic brain injury, rendering him completely disabled and requiring 24/7 attendant care.

Total damages were assessed at over $5.2 million, reduced to $3,131,370 after accounting for contributory negligence.

The defendant insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for long-term disability benefits, mental distress, and punitive damages.

The plaintiff alleged she was totally disabled due to psychiatric and psychological problems caused by workplace harassment from a co-worker.

The insurer argued the plaintiff was not medically disabled but merely unable to work around her harasser.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding whether the plaintiff met the test for total disability and whether there was a reasonable cause of action for mental distress and punitive damages.

The union filed a grievance alleging that the employer violated Article 9.1 of the collective agreement by failing to make reasonable provisions for the health and safety of employees at the Toronto Jail.

The union argued that inmate overcrowding and staff shortages led to excessive overtime, which created health and safety risks, including job strain and effort-reward imbalance.

The arbitrator dismissed the grievance, finding that the union's expert evidence on job strain was unreliable due to potential selection and reporting biases.

The arbitrator also concluded that the literature did not support a causal relationship between long work hours and adverse health outcomes, and that the employer's reliance on voluntary overtime did not constitute a failure to make reasonable provisions for health and safety.