Dr. Woods

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including medical and rehabilitative benefits, a non-earner benefit, and an attendant care benefit.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to establish psychological impairments or chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for non-earner and attendant care benefits, concluding the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and was precluded from attendant care benefits due to the minor injury classification.

The mother appealed a trial decision placing her two children in extended society care and ordering that access for the mother, older sister, and grandmother be at the discretion of the Children's Aid Society.

The Divisional Court upheld the extended society care order, dismissing the mother's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and other errors.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding access, finding that the trial judge erred in law by delegating the determination of the type, frequency, and duration of access entirely to the Society.

The matter of access was remitted to the trial judge.

The moving party mother sought a stay of a final order placing her two children in extended society care, as well as a temporary access order pending her appeal.

She requested increased access and joint decision-making regarding religious participation and schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the mother failed to meet the test for a stay pending appeal and that an increase in access was not in the children's best interests given the statutory framework for extended society care and the children's current circumstances.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for psychological assessments, psychological treatment, and physiotherapy.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the proposed treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's experts, who found minimal psycho-emotional distress and no objective evidence of physical impairment, over the conflicting and inconsistent reports of the applicant's experts.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit and several medical benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to an income replacement benefit because he was substantially able to perform essential tasks of his pre-accident employment, such as driving and carrying window samples.

The Tribunal approved two treatment plans for chiropractic services, finding them reasonable and necessary for pain management, and awarded interest on those amounts.

The claims for psychological services, an orthopaedic assessment, and an attendant care assessment were dismissed for lack of evidence demonstrating they were reasonable and necessary.

The respondent's request for costs due to the applicant's procedural non-compliance was denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits beyond the $3,500 limit prescribed by the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant claimed that chronic pain and psychological conditions, including adjustment disorder and post-traumatic stress, took his injuries outside the MIG.

The arbitrator found the applicant to be an unreliable historian who exaggerated his pain and functional limitations.

Relying on medical evidence that the applicant's psychological issues were clinically insignificant and his physical injuries were predominantly soft tissue strains, the arbitrator concluded the injuries fell within the MIG.

All claims for additional medical benefits, assessments, and a special award were dismissed.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking an exemption from paying child support on the basis of undue hardship, and requested direction on the type of therapy required to obtain unsupervised access.

The applicant father cross-moved for interim and retroactive child support, and for an order compelling the respondent to undergo specific therapy.

The case management judge dismissed both motions, finding that the respondent's financial circumstances were too unstable to properly assess child support or undue hardship at this time.

The court also declined to pre-determine the therapy requirements for unsupervised access, maintaining the status quo of supervised access.