Kateryna Borodenko

The plaintiffs brought a motion to remove the defendant's lawyers of record, AMR LLP, due to a conflict of interest.

A law clerk recently hired by AMR LLP had worked closely with the plaintiff for many years at the plaintiffs' counsel's firm.

The court found that while no confidential information was exchanged, the law clerk was a likely material witness regarding the plaintiff's pre-accident condition and employability.

Applying the Essa factors, the court concluded that the proper administration of justice required the removal of the defendant's counsel to avoid the risk of tainted evidence and cross-examination of their own employee.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological injuries, specifically Generalized Anxiety Disorder and Adjustment Disorder.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that his psychological injuries were caused by the accident, noting contradictions in his self-reporting regarding pre-accident mental health symptomology.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The claims for disputed treatment plans, assessments, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans, which included a chronic pain assessment, attendant care assessment, chiropractic treatment, massage therapy, and assistive devices.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate on a balance of probabilities that the proposed goods and services were reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator noted a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence supporting ongoing functional impairment and relied on insurer's examination reports which concluded the applicant did not suffer from structural injuries or significant psychological impairment.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate chronic pain with a functional impairment or a psychological injury warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the disputed treatment and assessment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, a neurological assessment, and an attendant care assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

The applicant argued the denials did not comply with s. 38(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's notices failed to identify the specific services or costs being denied, rendering them non-compliant.

Consequently, the respondent was held liable to pay for all three treatment plans, plus interest, without the need to determine if the plans were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from a psychological condition, specifically Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, which removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychological assessor over the respondent's assessor.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that all disputed treatment plans for psychological and chiropractic services were reasonable and necessary, and ordered the respondent to pay them with interest.

The applicant sought payment for a $1,463.52 physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the plan based on insurer examinations indicating the applicant's soft tissue injuries had substantially resolved.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment was reasonable and necessary, as there was no current medical evidence supporting the need for ongoing facility-based therapy.

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

The applicant sought entitlement to a $1,765.86 physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued that a treatment plan submitted in compliance with section 38(3) of the Schedule is deemed reasonable and necessary by default.

The Tribunal rejected this argument, finding that the onus remains on the applicant to prove the treatment is reasonable and necessary on a balance of probabilities.

As the applicant provided no medical evidence supporting the plan other than the plan itself, the claim was dismissed.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent argued the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding to a hearing for failing to attend a scheduled insurer examination.

The Tribunal found the respondent's notices of examination were non-compliant with section 44(5)(a) of the Schedule, as they lacked specific medical reasons, meaning the applicant was not barred from proceeding.

However, on the substantive issue, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for the treatment plan, finding the applicant's reported injuries and limitations were inconsistent and uncorroborated by the clinical notes and records of his family physician.

The plaintiffs purchased a cottage property with the intention of severing it into three lots, relying on the defendant solicitor's advice that severance would be straightforward due to a Planning Act consent stamp on title.

The solicitor later admitted this advice was negligent, as the consent was qualified and severance was not guaranteed.

The plaintiffs sued for the lost hypothetical value of the severed lots and carrying costs.

The court applied the Messineo measure of damages, finding that the plaintiffs suffered no loss because they paid fair market value for the unsevered property, which had since significantly increased in value.

The court awarded only $3,100 in special damages for the wasted retainer and application fees.