Michael Vrantsidis

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action against his former dentist for dental malpractice, battery, and breach of fiduciary duty following a root canal treatment that resulted in a perforated tooth and subsequent extraction.

The court dismissed the claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide the requisite expert medical evidence to establish a breach of the standard of care.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff had provided informed consent for the procedures, negating the battery claim, and that the claims relating to the root canal treatment were statute-barred as they were commenced beyond the two-year limitation period.

The applicant withdrew their application for statutory accident benefits on the morning of the scheduled hearing.

The respondent subsequently brought a motion for costs of $3,000, arguing the applicant's conduct was unreasonable.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the costs motion despite the withdrawal, as the respondent had previously given notice of its intent to seek costs.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding that while the applicant's conduct may have lacked professionalism, it did not meet the high threshold of being unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith, and the respondent suffered no prejudice.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment plans.

The respondent denied the plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary, not causally related to the accident, and not incurred.

The Tribunal found the physiotherapy treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, less fees for previous plans, as the medical evidence supported ongoing therapy for low back pain.

The chiropractic treatment plan was denied for lack of supporting evidence.

The Tribunal also held that the respondent is liable to pay for reasonable and necessary treatment once incurred, rejecting the argument that treatment must be incurred before it can be approved.

No interest was awarded as no payments were overdue.

The parties cross-appealed an Arbitrator's decision awarding the insured person all claimed accident benefits, interest, expenses, and a special award.

The Director's Delegate found that the Arbitrator correctly ordered payment of medical benefits and income replacement benefits (IRBs) where the insurer completely failed to respond to the claims, pursuant to the plain meaning of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

However, the Arbitrator erred in ordering payment where the insurer's response was merely deemed improper, and in failing to calculate the net amount of IRBs payable after deducting post-accident income.

The Delegate also found that while a special award was justified due to the insurer's unreasonable delay, the Arbitrator erred by failing to fix the amount of the award with precision.

Several issues, including the quantum of IRBs and the special award, were remitted for re-hearing.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The adjudicator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as the applicant was able to live independently, care for a child, and maintain relationships.

The claims for most of the medical and rehabilitation benefits were dismissed because they were not reasonable and necessary, largely due to a lack of evidence of cognitive impairment.

However, one treatment plan for occupational therapy services to address psychological impairments and assist the applicant in obtaining a GED was approved.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits from his insurer.

The insurer initially paid some benefits but later terminated them, arguing the applicant suffered only minor injuries and was capable of working.

The arbitrator found that the applicant was entitled to IRBs for a limited period from August 2013 to October 2013, as he had returned to work thereafter and failed to prove a complete inability to engage in employment.

The claims for further medical benefits were dismissed because the insurer had already paid the $50,000 policy limit after conceding the applicant's pre-existing condition removed him from the Minor Injury Guideline.

Interest was awarded on benefits that the insurer had delayed paying.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff sought over $1 million in damages, the jury awarded $3,000 in general damages.

After applying the statutory deductible under the Insurance Act, the plaintiff's recovery was reduced to zero, resulting in the dismissal of the action.

The successful defendants sought costs of approximately $340,000 to $355,000, arguing for substantial indemnity costs from the date of their $60,000 offer to settle.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the offer essentially sought capitulation.

Applying a 60% partial indemnity rate and making deductions for potential duplication, the court fixed the defendants' costs at $280,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident, the plaintiff was awarded $3,000 in general damages, which was entirely eliminated by the statutory deductible under the Insurance Act.

The trial judge declined to determine the threshold motion, finding the issue moot and noting that a ruling could undermine the jury's implicit factual findings.

The court also held that the 2015 amendment to s. 267.5(9) of the Insurance Act, which requires costs to be determined with regard to the statutory deductible, operates retrospectively and applies to the upcoming costs decision.