Geoffrey H. Yu

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criterion 7, as his combined physical and psychological impairments totaled 42%.

However, the Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, finding marked impairments in three domains: social functioning, activities of daily living, and adaptation.

The Tribunal largely preferred the evidence of the applicant's neuropsychologist and mother over the insurer's assessors.

The applicant's request for costs due to alleged spoilage of evidence was denied.

The applicant sought $10,200.00 for a multidisciplinary report to rebut the respondent's termination of his income replacement benefit.

The applicant argued that procedural fairness and section 25 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule entitled him to an insurer-funded rebuttal report.

The Tribunal held that the Schedule does not provide for the funding of rebuttal reports for income replacement benefit determinations, noting that section 25(1)5 specifically applies to catastrophic impairment applications.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the respondent was not liable for the cost of the assessment.

The applicant brought a motion to vary a case conference order to add a newly denied treatment plan for chronic pain as an issue in dispute for an upcoming hearing.

The respondent opposed, arguing a separate application was required.

The Adjudicator granted the motion, finding that adding the issue would save time and resources, avoid unnecessary case conferences, and ensure a fair and expeditious resolution, as the new issue involved the same parties and accident.

The Applicant's representative brought a motion to be removed from the record due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The representative had been unable to obtain instructions from the Applicant regarding a time-limited settlement offer from the Insurer.

The Applicant participated in the motion hearing and consented to the withdrawal.

The Arbitrator granted the motion pursuant to Rule 9.8 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, removing the representative and their firm from the record.

No costs were awarded.

This supplementary endorsement addresses the costs of an unsuccessful motion for leave to appeal brought by the plaintiff.

The defendants, having been entirely successful, were presumptively entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The court found the amounts claimed by the defendants' counsel to be excessive for a straightforward leave to appeal motion heard in writing, particularly the time allocated for legal research and drafting.

The court significantly reduced the claimed costs, setting a cap for fees on such motions, and awarded specific amounts to each defendant group.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming a TMJ assessment, chiropractic services, and other assistive devices.

The Respondent denied the TMJ assessment on the basis that causation was not established, and denied the other claims pending submission to the Applicant's extended healthcare provider.

The Tribunal found the TMJ assessment reasonable and necessary to determine the nature and cause of the injury, noting the Applicant's multiple complaints of jaw pain to medical practitioners.

The Tribunal found the other treatment plans were no longer in dispute as they had been funded by the Respondent.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied.

The plaintiff sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order compelling the production of historical medical records dating back to 2000 in a personal injury action.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal primarily because it was served out of time and the plaintiff did not seek an extension.

The court also noted that the motion would fail on the merits, as the requested records were relevant to the plaintiff's pre-existing complaints and proportional to the $2 million damages claim.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but failed to attend scheduled medical examinations, pre-hearing conferences, and the arbitration hearing itself.

Her counsel was previously removed from the record after advising that the applicant had moved to Pakistan and could not be reached for instructions.

The arbitrator dismissed the application for arbitration due to the applicant's failure to participate and meet her onus of proof.

The insurer was awarded $4,592.83 in expenses for costs thrown away in defending the abandoned application.