Nancy Mae Pollard McAuley

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that held him to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied his treatment plans.

The Vice-Chair found that the original decision contained a factual error regarding the interpretation of a CT scan report, which did not rule out a concussion as previously concluded.

Upon re-hearing the matter, the Vice-Chair determined that the applicant's consistent neurological symptoms supported a concussion diagnosis, removing him from the MIG.

The applicant was awarded funding for physiotherapy, massage, and occupational therapy (excluding travel time), plus interest.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied benefits and scheduled insurer's examinations under s. 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant refused to attend the examinations, arguing it was improper to schedule them after the Tribunal application had been filed.

The Tribunal found that the insurer had properly scheduled the examinations and that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her non-attendance.

Consequently, pursuant to s. 55(1)2 of the Schedule, the applicant was barred from proceeding to a hearing, and the application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he was not catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by providing inadequate reasons, displaying bias, and failing to address production order breaches, and that the adjudicator made errors of law and fact in assessing his psychological and social functioning impairments.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the adjudicator provided clear and adequate reasons, no reasonable apprehension of bias was established, and the adjudicator's weighing of the expert evidence and application of the legal test for marked impairment were reasonable and free of error.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Schedule and claimed entitlement to a post-104 income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment, as he did not demonstrate a marked impairment in at least two of the four functional domains, specifically finding his social functioning was compatible with some useful functioning.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's claim for a post-104 IRB, finding that the combination of his physical, psychological, cognitive, and visual impairments resulted in a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

Interest was awarded on the overdue IRB payments.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing (a 'Wagg motion') for the production of police records from the London Police Service.

The motion was previously adjourned to allow the police service to respond.

The plaintiff submitted an amended draft order incorporating the police service's usual requested limitations, but failed to file formal consents or notices of non-opposition from the defendant or the police service.

The court held that the material filed was insufficient to allow the motion to proceed in writing under Rule 37.12.1(1) and required the plaintiff to file the necessary consents or notices before the matter could be dealt with.

The defendant Bella Beauty Supplies Inc. brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims and sought costs.

The plaintiffs had sued Bella Beauty Supplies Inc. due to a curling iron bearing the 'Bella' name, despite the defendant having no involvement with electrical products.

The court granted summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' claims against Bella Beauty Supplies Inc. The court denied Bella's claim for damages beyond legal expenses, finding the evidence insufficient and the claims improperly advanced.

Regarding costs, the court found Bella entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, rejecting the request for substantial indemnity due to no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiffs.

The court significantly reduced the requested costs, fixing them at $3,000.00, citing Bella's excessive and disproportionate approach to litigation given the simplicity of its defense.

The plaintiff suffered a severe acquired brain injury after losing control of her vehicle on a snow-covered portion of a county road.

She sued the municipality for failing to maintain the road.

The court found that the municipality breached its statutory duty under the Municipal Act by failing to plow and salt the road, which had accumulated a large snow drift.

The court rejected the municipality's statutory defences and its argument that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent for driving too fast.

The plaintiff was awarded significant damages for non-pecuniary loss, past and future income loss, future care costs, and Family Law Act claims for her parents.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits, including an income replacement benefit.

She also received a monthly disability benefit of $6,175.00 from a private RBC insurance policy.

The insurer sought to deduct the RBC benefit from the income replacement benefit under section 7 of the SABS.

The arbitrator held that the RBC policy met the criteria of an 'income continuation benefit plan' under section 2(9) of the SABS, as it was offered only to employed persons and the maximum benefit was calculated with reference to employment income.

Therefore, the RBC benefit was deductible.

The applicants sought judicial review of an interlocutory decision by the Coroner refusing to issue a summons for the production of videos depicting interactions between correctional staff and the deceased, Ashley Smith.

The Divisional Court found that the Coroner applied an incorrect and overly stringent test by requiring a demonstrated 'nexus' between the videos and the death, rather than assessing whether the evidence was 'material' to the purposes of the inquest.

The Court quashed the Coroner's decision and remitted the issue for reconsideration, holding that the denial of access to potentially relevant evidence constituted a breach of natural justice.

During a judicial review application challenging a coroner's decision not to compel the advance production of tapes for an inquest, an issue arose regarding access to information on USB keys.

The Divisional Court ruled that there was no formal motion before the court regarding media access.

Furthermore, the court determined it did not need to access the information on the USB keys at that time, as the parties had already accessed the information and referred to it in their materials without apparent prejudice.