Michael Wolfe

A personal injury action arising from a fall sustained by the plaintiff while hunting in a deer blind on the defendants' rural property.

The plaintiff initially pleaded that the defendant Todd Drain was an occupier under the Occupiers' Liability Act but withdrew this allegation on the first day of trial.

The court determined that the withdrawal of the occupier allegation eliminated most claims against Todd Drain, leaving only a claim based on alleged misfeasance—specifically, that Todd Drain removed an artificial turf carpet from the deer blind floor, causing it to become wet and slippery.

The jury found that the artificial turf was present on the date of the accident, thereby dismissing the action against Todd Drain.

The decision addresses the interplay between the Occupiers' Liability Act and common law negligence, the proper formulation of jury questions, and the consequences of withdrawing pleadings mid-trial.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and funding for various medical assessments and treatments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to pre-104 or post-104 week IRBs, as she failed to prove a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment tasks or a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment, largely due to credibility issues and lack of effort during assessments.

The Tribunal also denied funding for chiropractic services and a functional abilities assessment.

However, the Tribunal granted funding for a physiatry assessment and a psychological examination to further explore the applicant's chronic pain and psychological symptoms, along with interest on these overdue amounts.

The applicant suffered a fractured elbow in a bicycle accident and sought payment for a $2,912.00 orthopaedic assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the assessment was not reasonable and necessary and exceeded the $2,000.00 cap.

The Tribunal found the assessment was reasonable and necessary, noting the cap did not apply to the entire amount as it included recoverable travel and preparation expenses.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the assessment cost with interest, but denied the applicant's requests for costs and a special award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after suffering a catastrophic impairment from a fall.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the fall did not involve the use or operation of an automobile.

At a preliminary issue hearing, the applicant claimed he fell while exiting his vehicle when the passenger door blew back in the wind.

The arbitrator reviewed conflicting documentary evidence, including ambulance and hospital records, and a 911 call, none of which mentioned a vehicle.

The arbitrator rejected the applicant's version of events, finding the fall did not involve an automobile, and concluded the applicant was not injured in an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.