4 total
Application for accident benefits dismissed; applicant failed to prove injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline.
The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic back and neck pain and psychological impairments.
The Tribunal found insufficient objective medical evidence to support chronic pain or psychological impairment caused by the accident, noting that the psychological reports relied heavily on subjective complaints and contained copied sections.
As the applicant's injuries remained within the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the claims for treatment plans, interest, and an award were dismissed.
Applicant removed from Minor Injury Guideline due to psychological impairment; psychological treatment plans approved.
The insurer denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).
The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor, he had sustained a psychological impairment (adjustment disorder with depressed mood) that removed him from the MIG.
Consequently, the Tribunal approved the treatment plans for a psychological assessment and psychological treatment, along with interest.
The claims for physical therapy were dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.
Defamation claim struck as statute-barred; continuous online availability does not retrigger the limitation period.
The plaintiffs brought an action for defamation regarding negative online reviews posted by the defendant on Yelp, Google, and Twitter.
The defendant moved under Rule 21 to strike the claim as it was commenced more than two years after the plaintiffs discovered the posts.
The plaintiffs argued that the continuous availability of the posts on the internet constituted multiple publications, retriggering the limitation period each time they were accessed.
The court rejected this argument, holding that the limitation period begins to run when the internet defamation is first discovered, and struck the statement of claim as statute-barred.
Motion granted allowing insurer to examine plaintiffs as non-parties in related actions regarding observations of co-plaintiffs.
The third party insurer brought a motion under Rule 31.10 for leave to examine the plaintiffs as non-parties in each other's related actions regarding their observations of the other occupants during a motor vehicle accident.
The plaintiffs had previously refused these questions on the basis of relevance to their individual actions, and a prior motion to compel answers was dismissed with an invitation to bring the motion under Rule 31.10.
The court granted the motion, finding that the questions were relevant to damages and credibility, and that the plaintiffs' narrow approach to relevance frustrated the discovery process and the principle of proportionality.
