Mark Greg Abogado

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2014 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to psychological and physical injuries, as well as attendant care benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accident was a necessary cause of her psychological impairments, noting significant pre-existing conditions and surveillance evidence contradicting her reported limitations.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not meet the whole person impairment threshold for physical and psychological impairments combined.

Claims for attendant care benefits were denied as the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and failed to prove the expenses were incurred.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed marked impairments in social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation due to psychological issues including depression and anxiety.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, finding that the applicant's impairments were moderate (Class 3) rather than marked (Class 4).

The Tribunal noted the applicant's ability to maintain relationships, travel, manage her children's schedules, and handle personal affairs, concluding she did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff sued her dentist for negligence and lack of informed consent following a wisdom tooth extraction that led to a severe facial space infection.

The plaintiff alleged the dentist failed to meet the standard of care by not taking updated X-rays, injecting local anesthetic near the infection, not referring her to a specialist, and not extracting an opposing tooth.

The court found that the plaintiff provided informed consent and that the dentist met the standard of care.

The court accepted expert evidence that the infection was brewing prior to the extraction and that the extraction likely mitigated its course.

The claim was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for a mistrial during trial, alleging prejudice from a newspaper article and improper conduct by plaintiffs' counsel.

The court dismissed the mistrial motion, finding no real danger of prejudice as no jurors had read the article, and that appropriate judicial instructions could cure any potential harm.

The court also ruled on the admissibility of the plaintiffs' expert evidence regarding dependency loss, specifically allowing a scenario based on career advancement despite some foundational facts not being fully proven, emphasizing that the weight, not admissibility, of expert testimony is affected by unproven facts.

The defendants sought leave to appeal a costs order made by Corkery J. following a settlement.

The underlying issue concerned whether costs and disbursements ran to the date of service of the settlement offer or the date of acceptance, impacting costs accumulated over a two-month period.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the defendants did not meet the grounds under Rule 62.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as there were no conflicting decisions on principles of costs interpretation and no good reason to doubt the correctness of the original order.

The defendant moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's dental malpractice claim.

The court found genuine issues for trial regarding the standard of care and causation, citing conflicting expert opinions and factual disputes, particularly concerning the defendant's discovery evidence.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The appellant, who was struck by a vehicle as a child pedestrian, appealed the dismissal of her action following a jury trial.

She argued the trial judge erred in permitting cross-examination on a hospital record and in the jury charge regarding the driver's duty of care and proper lookout.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's limiting instructions cured any prejudice from the cross-examination and the jury charge adequately equipped the jury to assess the driver's negligence and reverse onus.

The appellant, who was twelve years old at the time of a motor vehicle accident, applied for an Educational Disability Benefit (EDB) and a Loss of Earning Capacity Benefit (LECB) under the Bill 164 Schedule.

The Director's Delegate confirmed the arbitrator's decision that when the appellant turned sixteen, no EDB was payable unless she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the Delegate held that the test for an LECB offer when she turned sixteen was either a partial or complete inability to carry on a normal life, and remitted the matter to arbitration to determine if she met this test.

AXA Insurance Company appealed an arbitration order awarding Mario Rocca income replacement benefits beyond the 104-week mark and a $10,000 special award.

Rocca cross-appealed the calculation of his benefits regarding commission income.

The Director's Delegate found that despite the arbitrator's adverse credibility findings against Rocca, there was sufficient objective medical evidence, including an MRI showing a large disc herniation, to support the conclusion that he was disabled from the physical aspects of his pre-accident job.

The Director's Delegate also upheld the special award, finding the insurer unreasonably reduced benefits to the minimum level without an objective basis.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them.

The applicant applied for arbitration.

The insurer brought a preliminary motion to adjourn the arbitration until the applicant attended independent medical examinations by an orthopaedic surgeon and a neurologist.

The arbitrator found that the requested examinations were reasonably required under section 23(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, given a recent head injury diagnosis and the length of time since the last orthopaedic assessment.

The motion was granted and the arbitration was adjourned.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought ongoing income replacement benefits after the insurer terminated them at the 104-week mark.

The insurer argued the applicant was not substantially disabled and had misrepresented his pre-accident income and post-accident earnings.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence regarding his symptoms and finances to be highly unreliable, noting deliberate misrepresentations.

However, objective medical evidence of a large disc herniation, materially related to the accident, established that he was physically incapable of returning to the essential duties of his pre-accident employment.

The arbitrator ordered ongoing income replacement benefits and granted a $10,000 special award because the insurer had unreasonably reduced benefits earlier in the claim based solely on the applicant's receipt of unemployment insurance.