Court of Appeal Upholds Liability in Complicated Causation Occupiers’ Liability Case
personal injury Tag Archives
Willick v. Willard, 2023 ONCA 792
This action arose from a 2014 fatality of a 51-year-old man following a splenic rupture. The plaintiffs were the spouse and sons of a patient who was cleared to return to work in rural Ontario after having been admitted to hospital for abdominal trauma, including a broken rib, from falling at home while doing renovations. The defendants at trial were the general surgeon who saw the patient in hospital and the family physician who saw the patient in follow-up after he was discharged. The patient died of a splenic rupture 14 days after the fall that brought him into the hospital.
Mohammed v. Economical Insurance Company, 2024 CanLII 123 (ON LAT)
In a recent decision, the Licence Appeal Tribunal (the “LAT”) held that the applicant’s concussion removed him from the Minor Injury Guideline (the “MIG”) despite the effective resolution of his concussion symptoms.
Hassan v. Sun Life, 2023 ONSC 7280
On July 26, 2017, the plaintiff, a lawyer for Legal Aid Ontario, submitted a claim for long-term disability benefits (LTDs) to Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (Sun Life), alleging total disability as of April 18, 2017, due to left arm and shoulder pain, anxiety, depression and phantom limb pain. On September 26, 2017, the plaintiff received a letter from Sun Life advising her that her claim for LTDs had not been approved as she did not satisfy the definition of “total disability”.
Thanh Du v Economical Insurance Company, 2023 CanLII 116499 (ON LAT)
The applicant, Vinh Thanh Du, was injured in an automobile collision on February 14, 2020. He sought benefits from his car insurer, Economical Insurance. Economical denied treatment plans for physiotherapy and massage therapy on the basis that the applicant’s injuries fall within the Minor Injury Guideline (“MIG”). A claimant is confined to the MIG if they sustain primarily minor injuries in the subject accident.
Majerczyk v. Manalo, 2023 ONSC 3064
This ruling involves a motion brought by the defendant for leave to call more than three experts at trial, and more specifically, a physiatrist and an orthopaedic surgeon.
