3 total
Application for catastrophic impairment designation dismissed as whole person impairment was assessed at 28%.
The applicant sought a determination that she was catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident, claiming marked or extreme impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder, or alternatively, a 55% or more whole person impairment (WPI).
The arbitrator found that the applicant did not suffer a marked or extreme mental or behavioural impairment.
After evaluating conflicting medical evidence regarding her physical and cognitive injuries, the arbitrator assessed her combined WPI at 28%, well below the 55% threshold.
The applicant was awarded $6,000 for the costs of catastrophic assessments, but her claims for attendant care benefits were dismissed.
The insurer was awarded its arbitration expenses.
Discoverability allowed late addition of railway defendant after limitation period.
The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to add a railway company as a defendant and to amend their statement of claim following a train–motor vehicle collision.
The proposed defendant opposed the motion, arguing that the claim was statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 and that the plaintiffs failed to exercise due diligence in identifying it earlier.
The court held that the discoverability principle applied because the plaintiffs reasonably believed the train operator was responsible for the crossing until examinations for discovery revealed that another entity controlled the tracks and signals.
The court found the plaintiffs had acted with reasonable diligence and that the proposed defendant suffered no actual prejudice given its early knowledge of the accident.
The motion to add the party and amend the claim was granted, with leave to the added defendant to plead a limitation defence.
Self-employed taxi driver's uncorroborated cash records insufficient to prove income above statutory minimum for accident benefits.
The applicant, a self-employed taxi driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed statutory accident benefits.
A dispute arose regarding the calculation of her pre-accident gross weekly income, as she operated on a cash basis and did not file tax returns.
The arbitrator found that the applicant's uncorroborated testimony and self-created trip sheets for only one week were insufficient to prove an income higher than the deemed minimum.
Consequently, her weekly income benefits were set at the minimum of $185.60.
The insurer's claim for repayment of benefits previously paid at a higher rate was dismissed, as the insurer failed to prove the payments were made through error or fraud.
