Jeffrey R. Baum

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a psychological assessment and a chronic pain treatment program.

The respondent insurer denied both claims, initially relying on the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant demonstrated psychological symptoms and chronic pain related to the accident that warranted the disputed treatment plans.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's assessor over the respondent's paper-review expert, noting inconsistencies in the latter's reports.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for both the psychological assessment and the chronic pain treatment program, along with interest on the overdue payments.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking to compel the defendants to fulfill outstanding undertakings and answer numerous refusals arising from examinations for discovery in a commercial dispute involving alleged breach of contract and trademark infringement related to restaurant businesses.

The court reviewed whether undertakings had been adequately fulfilled and whether refusals were proper under the Rules of Civil Procedure governing relevance and proportionality.

Most undertakings were found to have been adequately answered and most refusals were upheld as proper because the requested information was irrelevant, duplicative, disproportionate, or related to events after the parties’ business relationship ended in September 2011.

The court ordered compliance with only two undertakings and several limited refusals concerning investors and accounts tied to a key restaurant entity before September 2011.

The plaintiffs’ motion was otherwise dismissed and costs were awarded to the defendants.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for various expenses, most notably over $100,000 for an unconventional treatment called 'Vistasp therapy'.

The arbitrator found that Vistasp therapy did not qualify as a 'good or service of a medical nature' under section 14 of the Schedule, as it lacked any scientific or medical basis, and was alternatively experimental, unreasonable, and unnecessary.

Claims for conventional therapies, Tai Chi, and dog-walking were allowed.

A special award of $1,000 was granted against the insurer for unreasonably denying the non-Vistasp claims.