Greg A. Abogado

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including attendant care benefits and funding for a multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the attendant care benefits were reasonable and necessary, as insurer's examinations indicated she had returned to her pre-accident functional abilities.

The Tribunal also denied the catastrophic impairment assessment treatment plan, finding insufficient medical evidence to support that it was reasonably possible the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident while visiting Canada, sought $21,357.00 for catastrophic impairment assessments after his accident benefits were exhausted.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan, relying on independent medical examinations that found no objective impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's occupational therapy evidence and medical records established a reasonable basis to investigate a catastrophic impairment, noting his ongoing physical and psychological limitations.

The Tribunal partially approved the treatment plan for $12,400.00, allowing the physiatry, neurology, occupational therapy, and one psychiatry assessment, but denied duplicative assessments and file reviews.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 and entitlement to post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRB).

The Tribunal found the applicant catastrophically impaired, accepting expert evidence that she suffered marked impairments in social functioning, concentration, persistence, and pace, and adaptation due to accident-related mental and behavioural disorders.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for IRB, finding the applicant failed to tender opinion evidence challenging the respondent's vocational and medical assessments that she could engage in suitable alternative employment.

A claim for an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was also dismissed due to the applicant's failure to provide required particulars.

The appellant sued her landlord for negligence after suffering serious personal injuries from a fall on a fire escape, alleging it was not kept free of ice and snow.

The trial judge dismissed the action, accepting the superintendent's evidence of daily inspections and finding no snow or ice was present, while rejecting the appellant's evidence on credibility grounds.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence and erred in credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the record and there was no basis to interfere with the finding that the standard of care was met.

This costs endorsement followed a five-day jury trial where the jury found Mr. Kane solely responsible for a motor vehicle accident, absolving the Estate of Ellen Browne of any contributory negligence.

State Farm, as statutory third party, stood in the plaintiffs' shoes.

The successful defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court found the defendants entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting State Farm's suggestion that both insurers bear their own costs.

The court reduced the claimed disbursements for a forensic engineer whose evidence was largely disregarded and also reduced the claimed legal fees, finding the aggregate time dockets excessive given the case's complexity.

The final costs were fixed at $73,051.81, payable by State Farm.

The plaintiff sought damages after a fall from an apartment building fire escape, alleging breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act and the Fire Code due to accumulated snow and ice.

The court held that fire escapes must be kept safe for emergency use and that the occupier’s duty was not negated merely because tenants used the area for smoking, but found the defendants had a reasonable winter maintenance system in place.

The plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that ice on the fire escape caused the fall, particularly given credibility problems, inconsistent accounts of the accident, and photographic and witness evidence inconsistent with the alleged icy condition.

The action was dismissed.

The court nevertheless assessed hypothetical damages totalling substantial non-pecuniary, loss of competitive advantage, future care, and OHIP subrogated amounts.

During a personal injury trial arising from a fall from an apartment building fire escape, the plaintiff sought to have a neuro‑psychiatrist provide an opinion on the mechanism of the head injury and introduce an animated demonstrative video illustrating a coup‑contrecoup brain injury.

The court ruled that the late‑served expert report failed to comply with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and would prejudice the defence if admitted during trial.

The court also held that, although the witness was qualified in neuro‑psychiatry, he was not properly qualified to opine on the mechanism of the accident, which was a liability issue better addressed by engineering experts.

The proposed demonstrative video was excluded because it was hypothetical and not grounded in evidence adduced at trial.

The expert was limited to giving evidence within the scope of his earlier reports concerning the plaintiff’s neuro‑psychiatric injuries.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident at age 12.

She claimed entitlement to an education disability benefit (EDB) and a loss of earning capacity benefit (LECB) upon turning 16.

The preliminary issues were the applicable disability test for EDBs at age 16 and whether she was entitled to an LECB offer.

The Arbitrator held that because more than 104 weeks had passed since she first qualified for EDBs at the time of the accident, the stricter test of a complete inability to carry on a normal life applied under section 15(4) of the Schedule.

Furthermore, the insurer was not required to make an LECB offer at age 16 because it had already stopped paying weekly benefits.