Category: Catastrophic Impairment

Jamali v. Economical Insurance Company (2025 ONSCDC 1393)

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment. The claimant raised multiple procedural issues and fairness issues. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the reasons applied the correct legal tests and provided detailed, comprehensive reasons for the conclusions reached. The causation test used by the Tribunal was correct, and the Tribunal’s conclusion that the alleged injuries and impairments were not caused by the accident was supported by the record. The claimant was given a seven day hearing and was allowed to present her case, call witnesses, cross-examine the insurer’s experts, raise objections, and make submissions. There was no indication that the hearing was conducted in a manner inconsistent with procedural fairness or the claimant’s expectations.

Hall v. Unifund Assurance Company (2024 ONSC 6677)

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the claimant’s appeal was essentially a re-argument of the evidence. The Tribunal was entitled to weigh the evidence as it saw fit, and the adjudicator provided full and cogent reasons for the decision. There was no error of law or denial of procedural fairness to the claimant.

Vivekanantham v. Certas Direct Insurance Company (2024 ONSC 6198)

The claimant appealed and sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision that she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment and that she was not entitled to a special award. At the Tribunal hearing, the insurer’s psychiatric assessor refused to attend to give evidence despite a summons, but the adjudicator still allowed the IE report to be considered. Also during the hearing, the insurer conceded the claimant’s entitlement to IRBs, removal from the MIG, and entitlement to medical benefits, and paid amounts owing plus interest. However, the adjudicator concluded that she did not have jurisdiction to grant a special award once the benefits were approved. The Court granted the appeal, holding that the Tribunal erred when it failed to consider whether to make a special award on IRBs and the approved medical benefits, and in breaching procedural fairness when it admitted the psychiatry IE despite the refusal of the assessor to attend the hearing. The Court wrote that the Tribunal should have excluded the IE report once it was clear the assessor would not attend the hearing. The Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

Cabral v. Northbridge General Insurance (2024 ONSC 6057)

The claimant appealed and sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision that he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment as a result of a 2002 accident. The Tribunal concluded that the claimant’s impairments did not meet the necessary psychological injuries, and that a subsequent 2006 accident was a primary factor for the reported impairments. The Court dismissed the appeal and the judicial review, holding that there were no legal errors made by the Tribunal. The adjudicator applied the correct tests, and did not improperly weigh any evidence or improperly admit hearsay evidence.

Kaloczi v. Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company (2024 ONSC 5665)

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that she did not suffer a catastrophic impairment. She argued that the Tribunal erred in applying the “but for” causation test, and failing to properly weigh other issues that led to psychological impairment. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that there was no basis to reversed the Tribunal. The adjudicator carefully considered the evidence relating to psychological impairment and concluded that the claimant failed to prove that she had sufficiently reduced impairment in three spheres of function. Further, the adjudicator’s conclusion that the accident was not a necessary cause of the claimant’s condition was fact driven, and was based on the evidence before the Tribunal.

Achaia-Shiwram v. Intact Insurance Company (2024 ONSC 5479)

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that she did not suffer a catastrophic impairment and that she was not entitled to IRBs. She argued that the Tribunal erred in its causation analysis, in considering pre-existing conditions, and in attributing impairments to a subsequent event. The Court dismissed the appeal. The Court held that the Tribunal did not make any legal errors in its decision. The Tribunal correctly used the “but for” test in determining causation of the psychological injuries, and was correct in considering the claimant’s pre-accident and post-accident functioning in order to determine the cause of the psychological injuries. Finally, the Court held that the Tribunal’s consideration of a subsequent injury as an intervening event was not an error of law.

Hamad v. Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company (2024 ONSC 3324)

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s decision that he did not suffer a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the claimant did not raise any legal errors on the part of the Tribunal. The Tribunal’s factual findings were supported by the evidence presented by the parties, and the Tribunal was entitled to make assessments of the witnesses credibility. Additionally, the Tribunal’s reliance on medical records by a doctor not present at the hearing was permitted, as hearsay evidence is permissible in hearings before the Tribunal.

Laljee v. Aviva General Insurance Company (2024 ONSC 2577)

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s dismissal of her claim for a catastrophic impairment designation and various treatment plans. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding that there was no merit to the claimant’s arguments. The claimant had not been denied procedural fairness, and had been provided with all documentation referred to during the hearing. The Tribunal’s findings of fact were based on the ample evidence before it, as was the conclusion that the claimant’s impairments were largely a result of pre-existing conditions.

Shahin v. Intact Insurance Company (2024 ONSC 2059)

The claimant appealed the Tribunal’s conclusion that she did not suffer a catastrophic impairment. She argued that she was denied procedural fairness due to: (i) failure by the Tribunal to make the insurer’s expert re-attend for cross-examination, (ii) by the Tribunal deciding causation when it was not argued by the parties; and (iii) by the Tribunal’s reference to documents that were not discussed by the parties or witnesses. The Court agreed that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness due to each of the three argued reasons. The Court remanded the dispute to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

Gayle v. TD General Insurance Company (22-0050088)

The claimant’s husband was allegedly struck by a vehicle insured by the insurer on December 8, 2020. The claimant and her husband were not insured. The claimant sought accident benefits for psychological injuries resulting from the incident. The insurer denied her claim, stating she is not an “insured person” under section 3(1) of the SABS and raised a preliminary issue of whether the claimant was an insured person involved in the “accident” as per the SABS. The insurer argued that accident benefits only extend to named insureds, specified drivers, spouses, or dependents of the named insured under s. 3(1), and since the claimant did not fall into any of these categories, she was not covered. The claimant contended that she should qualify based on her husband’s catastrophic impairment and that excluding spouses of insured individuals from coverage would be discriminatory. The LAT ruled that the definition of an “insured person” under section 3(1) is clear and applies only to those explicitly named on the policy. In answer to the question of whether the claimant was involved in an accident involving the insured vehicle, the LAT concluded that the claimant was neither involved in nor witnessed the accident and that her impairments were causally connected to caring for her injured husband, rather than the accident itself. As such, the claimant was found ineligible for accident benefits, and her application was dismissed.

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com

© 2020 Thomas Gold Pettingill LLP Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | Statement of Principles

Powered by Crow & Pitcher

Contact Us

150 York Street, Suite 1800
Toronto, Ontario M5H 3S5

416.507.1800

416.507.1850

eodonnell@tgplawyers.com