Jeffrey Preszler

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision finding he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment from a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by failing to provide specific reasons regarding the catastrophic impairment claim and made an error of fact by ignoring a treating doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness because the initial decision concluded the applicant sustained no injuries in the accident, rendering a catastrophic impairment analysis unnecessary.

The Tribunal also found no error of fact, noting the original adjudicator carefully considered the medical records but preferred competing evidence.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law or fact by incorrectly applying the 'but for' test for causation regarding her psychological impairments.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the correct legal test for causation was applied and that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof to show the accident was a necessary cause of her psychological impairments.

The adjudicator also found no error in the assessment of the applicant's impairments under the AMA Guides.

The applicant, who was 12 days old at the time of a minor motor vehicle accident, sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant's mother claimed he suffered a concussion resulting in developmental delays.

The adjudicator found no objective medical evidence of a head injury from the accident, noting that treating physicians and assessors concluded the applicant's developmental issues were not accident-related.

The mother's testimony was deemed unreliable as it contradicted the medical records.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and deemed catastrophically impaired.

He sought ongoing statutory accident benefits for housekeeping and home maintenance, as well as a rent differential to move to a larger apartment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident housekeeping tasks, he failed to prove that the claimed housekeeping expenses were actually incurred.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a rent differential, finding insufficient evidence that moving to a larger apartment was a reasonable and necessary medical or rehabilitation expense.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were consequently dismissed.

The plaintiff, D.S., brought a motion for default judgment against the defendant, Louis Omer Quesnelle, for damages arising from intentional torts of assault, sexual assault, and sexual interference committed when the plaintiff was a child.

The defendant had been criminally convicted for these acts.

The court found the defendant liable, ruling that the criminal convictions constituted proof of the intentional torts and that no limitation period applied.

The court awarded the plaintiff $400,000 in general damages and $1,533,416 in economic damages for past and future loss of earning capacity, but declined to award punitive damages given the defendant's prior penitentiary sentence.

This was a costs endorsement following a venue transfer motion in a slip and fall action arising from an incident at a rental cabin near North Bay.

The plaintiff had unsuccessfully sought to transfer the action to Welland, while the defendants successfully obtained a transfer to North Bay.

Applying s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that costs should follow the event but reduced the defendants' requested amounts because the claims were excessive, involved duplication of preparation, and were disproportionate to the complexity of the matter.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay each defendant $1,200 inclusive of disbursements and HST.