Boyd Critoph

The plaintiff, a seven-year-old student, suffered a catastrophic brain bleed after being punched in the head by another student during recess.

The plaintiff sued the school board and its staff for negligent supervision.

The court found that while the punch caused the brain bleed due to the plaintiff's pre-existing undiagnosed arteriovenous malformation, the school board and staff were not negligent.

The general supervision of the schoolyard met the standard of a careful and prudent parent, and the offending student's prior minor misbehaviour did not warrant closer supervision.

The action was dismissed.

During a trial regarding a schoolyard assault that allegedly caused the rupture of an arteriovenous malformation (AVM) in the plaintiff's brain, the plaintiffs moved to exclude an addendum to the defendants' neurosurgical expert report.

The plaintiffs argued the addendum, which contained statistics on the annual risk of an AVM bleeding, constituted a new 'crumbling skull' defence related to damages that was not properly pleaded or disclosed.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the risk statistic was already patent in the expert's original report and had been accepted by the plaintiffs' own expert.

The court held that a medical fact relevant to causation for liability is equally relevant to the assessment of damages, and its use did not open a new medical field.

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

The insurer refused to pay income replacement benefits because the applicant failed to attend an independent medical examination.

The arbitrator held that the applicant was not barred from proceeding to arbitration because she had no outstanding claim for benefits when the examination was requested, and she had valid reasons for distrusting the insurer's doctors based on prior examinations.

The arbitrator also determined that pre-accident self-employment losses are not deducted from employment income when calculating gross income for income replacement benefits.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed because her late application prejudiced the insurer.

The appellant appealed a preliminary arbitration order that stayed his arbitration hearing until he attended two insurer examinations.

The appellant argued the stay should not have been granted because the insurer had defaulted on its statutory obligation to pay for rehabilitation benefits pending the hearing.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding it was not clear on the evidence that the insurer had breached the 'pay pending' rules, and upheld the arbitrator's finding that the examinations were reasonably necessary.

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

The insurer disputed the claim and requested that the applicant attend psychiatric and neurological insurer examinations (IEs).

The applicant refused to attend, arguing the request was a last-minute tactic.

On a preliminary issue hearing, the arbitrator found that the insurer's request was reasonably necessary because the applicant's initial neuropsychological assessment was based on incomplete pre-accident records, which the applicant had refused to provide until shortly before the hearing.

The arbitrator ordered that the applicant is precluded from proceeding to arbitration until he makes himself reasonably available for the requested IEs.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received a weekly income replacement benefit (IRB) of $209.49.

Upon turning 65, the insurer reduced her weekly IRB to $17.64 pursuant to the formula in section 9 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued that she was entitled to a minimum weekly IRB of $185 under section 6(1)(b) of the Schedule.

The arbitrator held that section 9 provides a complete code for calculating IRBs after age 65 and replaces the formula in section 6.

The applicant's weekly IRB after age 65 was determined to be $17.64.

The applicant was injured when she fell on a TTC bus.

She applied for statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits and various medical and rehabilitation expenses.

The insurer terminated income replacement benefits based on a multidisciplinary DAC assessment.

The arbitrator found the applicant to be a poor historian prone to exaggeration and deceit, and preferred the evidence of the IME and DAC assessors over her treating physiatrist.

The claim for ongoing income replacement benefits was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove she was substantially unable to perform her duties as a housekeeper and nanny.

Claims for psychological treatment, massage therapy, a lumbosacral support, and some taxi fares were allowed, while the remaining claims were dismissed.

The applicant claimed she was injured when a public transit bus braked sharply.

She received statutory accident benefits until July 1993, when the insurer terminated them.

The applicant sought ongoing weekly income benefits, claiming she was disabled by fibromyalgia and severe psychological problems caused by the accident.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant was involved in an accident and was disabled by psychological problems, she failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the accident caused her psychological disability.

The claim for ongoing benefits and a special award was dismissed.

The applicant claimed he was injured when a public transit bus braked suddenly, causing him to support his weight on his leg.

He sought ongoing statutory accident benefits, claiming physical and psychological impairments prevented him from continuing his English as a Second Language classes and carrying on a normal life.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim, finding the applicant's evidence lacked credibility and that he had concealed his refugee status from medical assessors.

The medical evidence established that the applicant's knee complaints were likely idiopathic and that he suffered no physical or psychological impairment disabling him from his studies or normal activities.

The arbitrator also denied the applicant's request for hearing expenses due to his lack of candour and failure to present a bona fide claim.