Mandel v. Fakhim[1] involves an appeal from a trial decision, heard before the Divisional Court. The action related to injuries resulting from a motor vehicle collision, which occurred on July 4, 2009. The jury verdict at trial was delivered on November 18, 2016, where the jury awarded $3,000 in damages to the plaintiff, for pain and suffering, and nothing for past or future lost income, future care expenses or housekeeping services.
There is nothing more Canadian than checking the weather to find out that it is the perfect conditions for a good old hockey game with your friends at the outdoor public ice rink. But who is responsible for ensuring the property maintenance of these public rinks?
This decision demonstrates that for catastrophic cases, the LAT has made it clear that properly qualified experts will lose credibility if they do not have sufficient expertise in the areas for which they are providing WPI rating.
The life-altering impact of a mild traumatic brain injury, despite the Plaintiff’s return to work and surveillance evidence at trial showing the Plaintiff carrying on a normal life.
An example of inadmissible hearsay used to corroborate physical evidence or independent witness evidence requirements under an OPCF 44R Family Protection Endorsement.
A discussion about outdated fee structures in the Ontario no-fault system.
