Dr. Wong

A youth was sentenced following guilty pleas to two counts of aggravated assault, one count of break and enter with assault, and multiple counts of failing to comply with court orders.

The assaults were racially motivated and occurred on August 1, 2011, against two members of the Verma family.

The youth had been on probation and undertaking release at the time of the offences.

The court imposed an 18-month concurrent sentence on the aggravated assault counts, with credit for 8 months and 15 days of pre-sentence custody on a one-to-one basis, resulting in 9 months and 15 days of further detention (6 months and 10 days in open custody, 3 months and 5 days under community supervision), followed by 18 months of probation.

The applicant, a self-employed plumber, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer terminated income replacement and housekeeping benefits and denied various medical benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment due to his injuries, which aggravated pre-existing conditions, and awarded ongoing income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator also awarded the claimed medical benefits, housekeeping benefits, the cost of an MRI, and interest at 2% per month.

A special award was granted against the insurer for unreasonably withholding payments, with the amount to be determined.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, physiotherapy expenses, travel expenses, and the cost of a medical assessment report.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims for income replacement benefits and physiotherapy, finding the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and noting inconsistencies in his testimony regarding his job duties and post-accident conduct.

The arbitrator awarded $52 for travel expenses and $963 for the cost of a physiatry report, finding those expenses reasonable and necessary.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's cautious approach was justified given the credibility concerns.