Joy Stothers

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits from the respondent insurer under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied several treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary, relying on section 44 assessments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to $338.61 for a therapeutic pool membership and $2,359.99 for chiropractic treatment, as these were reasonable, necessary, and incurred.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for the remaining treatment plans, finding that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving they were reasonable and necessary, particularly given the lack of substantive analysis and the inclusion of excessive ancillary fees.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The Applicant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought attendant care benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Insurer denied the benefits, arguing they were not "incurred" because the Applicant's caregivers did not sustain an economic loss.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant's friend, who housed and cared for him while acting as his surety on bail, sustained an economic loss by charging reduced rent and incurring additional grocery and utility costs.

The arbitrator awarded attendant care benefits of $3,526.34 per month for the period the Applicant resided with this friend.

Claims for other periods, including while the Applicant was hospitalized, staying with other family members, or incarcerated, were dismissed due to a lack of evidence of attendant care services provided or economic loss sustained.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

After failing to participate in the arbitration process and having his counsel removed from the record, the insurer brought a motion to dismiss the application.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had abandoned his application and that it was frivolous and vexatious.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's legal expenses of $632.80.

The appellant doctor appealed a trial judgment finding him liable for the respondent's psychiatric injury, which developed after the doctor failed to promptly disclose a talar fracture in the respondent's ankle.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding that factual causation was established on the 'but for' test, as the respondent would not have suffered the psychiatric harm had the doctor disclosed the fracture.

The Court also found that legal causation was established, as it was reasonably foreseeable that a breach of the doctor-patient trust could cause a recognized psychiatric illness in a person of ordinary fortitude.

The appeal was dismissed, and the damages and costs awards were upheld.

The plaintiffs sued the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and others following the drowning death of a 7-year-old child who allegedly slipped down the concrete banks of Mimico Creek.

The TRCA moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no involvement with the adjacent apartment properties.

The motions judge dismissed the motion, and the TRCA appealed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the TRCA's affidavit evidence only addressed the adjacent properties and failed to address the plaintiffs' allegations regarding the design, maintenance, and attractive nuisance of the creek itself.

Because the TRCA did not meet its initial evidentiary burden to show there was no genuine issue for trial, the burden did not shift to the plaintiffs.