Gregory C. Gilhooly

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his application for a catastrophic impairment designation and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court found that the LAT adjudicator's reasons were inadequate, conclusory, and failed to account for extensive expert medical evidence regarding the appellant's traumatic brain injury.

The court held that the adjudicator made factual findings without evidentiary support, particularly regarding the appellant's volunteer activities.

The appeal was granted, the LAT decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing before a different adjudicator.

The applicant, who was deemed catastrophically impaired following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, sought payment for several treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal denied the treatment plans for a sleep system and a scuba diving course, finding they were not reasonable and necessary as the applicant had a similar sleep system prior to the accident and was already engaging in other activities that supplanted the need for the scuba course.

However, the Tribunal approved the treatment plan for a rehabilitation assistant to help the applicant move homes, noting his physical and psychological impairments hindered his ability to do so independently.

The Tribunal also approved treatment plans for chiropractic, massage, and physiotherapy services, finding they provided necessary pain relief, but denied a duplicate chiropractic plan.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment designation and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal evaluated the competing multidisciplinary assessments to determine if the applicant met the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criterion 7.

The Tribunal rejected several of the applicant's proposed impairment ratings, including those for the lumbar spine, headaches, mental status, and medication, finding them inconsistent with the AMA Guides and medical evidence.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's combined whole person impairment was 45%, falling short of the catastrophic impairment threshold.

The application for benefits, interest, and costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident that resulted in a traumatic brain injury.

The central issue was whether the applicant's brain injury restricted his ability to work such that he met the criteria for catastrophic impairment under the GOS-E Guideline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was capable of working in a reduced capacity, as evidenced by his post-accident construction work and his role teaching martial arts to children, and therefore did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for attendant care benefits, finding the applicant to be highly functional both physically and cognitively, and denied the claim for interest.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision refusing to extend the limitation period for her claim for non-earner benefits.

The LAT Act limits appeals to questions of law, but the applicant sought judicial review on issues of mixed fact and law regarding her mental capacity.

Applying the framework from Yatar, the Divisional Court declined to hear the application, finding no exceptional circumstances to justify judicial review where the legislature intended to limit recourse to the courts.

The applicant sought to dispute the respondent's denial of non-earner benefits (NEBs) approximately three years after the expiry of the two-year limitation period under s. 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued that the limitation period should be extended under s. 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act due to her mental incapacity during the appeal period.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's denial was clear and unequivocal.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to establish a bona fide intention to appeal within the limitation period, as no medical practitioner had recommended a capacity assessment at the time.

Given the significant delay and resulting prejudice to the respondent, the Tribunal held that the justice of the case did not warrant an extension of time.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate of the Financial Services Commission of Ontario, which had overturned an arbitrator's award of income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator had applied a 'material contribution' test for causation.

The Director's Delegate correctly held that the 'but for' test was the proper standard but erred in his explanation of how the test applies.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application for judicial review and upheld the order remitting the matter to a new arbitrator to apply the correct legal test for causation.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions refused at discovery and to produce the legal file of his former lawyers.

The action was commenced more than two years after the motor vehicle accident, raising a limitation period defence.

The defendants argued the plaintiff waived privilege over the file by referencing his former lawyers' advice in a letter to his insurer, and that the file was relevant to the discoverability of his claim.

The court found that while the entire file need not be produced, the plaintiff must disclose information from the file regarding advice on obtaining medical opinions and steps taken to manage the file, as this was relevant to testing his due diligence.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to attend a further independent medical examination by a physiatrist and permitting the resulting expert report to be served after the pre-trial conference.

The plaintiff opposed the request on the basis that it constituted a second medical examination and argued the defendants had not established its necessity.

The court held that the plaintiff’s physiatrist report introduced issues concerning mood, anxiety, and cognitive symptoms that were outside the expertise of the defendants’ orthopaedic surgeon who had previously examined the plaintiff.

Given the differing medical specialties and the need to respond to new issues raised in the plaintiff’s expert evidence, the court exercised its discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to order the additional examination.

The plaintiff was ordered to attend the defendants’ physiatrist examination and the expert report was permitted to be served after the pre-trial.