Tessie Kalogeras

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his claim for catastrophic impairment benefits.

The LAT had found that the appellant's physician, Dr. Ofokansi, provided only a conclusory opinion on the OCF-19 form without supporting analysis or medical data.

The appellant argued the LAT should have considered the evidence of his psychologist, Dr. Reesor.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that section 45 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule requires a catastrophic impairment assessment to be conducted by a physician.

Since the physician's assessment was entirely conclusory and entitled to no weight, the psychologist's evidence alone was insufficient to establish the claim.

The plaintiff, Adam Gardner, sued John Doe Driver, John Doe Owner, and TD General Insurance after an automobile accident, alleging an unknown vehicle was the sole cause.

TD General Insurance, Gardner's insurer, brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the action against it, arguing that an identified vehicle (Mr. Curtis's) was involved, which would preclude coverage under s. 265(1) of the Insurance Act.

The court granted TD Insurance's motion, finding on a balance of probabilities that the accident was not caused solely by an unknown vehicle, but rather by Gardner's vehicle striking Curtis's vehicle.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her income replacement benefits and a treatment plan.

She argued procedural fairness was breached because the hearing was held by telephone rather than in person, minor injury guidelines were added without notice, medical records were not fairly evaluated, and the rule in Browne v. Dunn was not followed.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the telephone hearing, noting the appellant should have been aware of the MIG issue, and concluding the adjudicator reasonably evaluated the medical evidence.