Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court granted a defence application for an occupational therapy functional capacity evaluation, finding it would answer questions not covered by the prior IME.
The Tribunal accepted the appellant's consistent testimony and corroborating medical records establishing severe functional limitations (sitting, standing, walking, manual dexterity, concentration and memory) that precluded regular work; it found the appellant provided reasonable explanations for not pursuing certain treatments (COVID access issues, loss of family doctor, caregiving obligations) and rejected the June 2021 functional capacity evaluation as unreliable to prove full‑time sedentary capacity; applying CPP definitions and MQP timing, the Tribunal concluded the disability was severe…
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a defence application for additional FCE and C-FCE examinations, finding they were not necessary and would amount to impermissible bolstering.
The court ordered the plaintiff to attend a physical and cognitive functional capacity evaluation and awarded costs to the defendant in any event of the cause.
Liability was admitted after a rear-end collision, and the court assessed damages for a chronic low-back soft tissue injury with mood, sleep, housekeeping and earning-capacity impacts.
The appeal was allowed because the Tribunal found the medical and functional evidence did not establish a severe disability: treating specialists and an FCE showed residual capacity for sedentary to light work, the respondent maintained considerable activity, and, per Inclima, he failed to attempt alternative employment despite retained capacity; therefore the respondent did not prove he was regularly incapable of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation and there was no need to assess prolongedness.
Source excerpt
The appeal was dismissed because the medical and functional evidence showed residual capacity and treating providers did not rule out return to modified work, and the appellant failed to make meaningful efforts to pursue alternative employment, so she did not prove a severe disability as of December 31, 2022.
Source excerpt
The court excluded a functional capacity/cost of future care report and an economist report under s. 5(6) of the Regulation, finding the plaintiff met the statutory criteria.
Application under the Disbursement and Expert Evidence Regulation granted in part: the court found a functional capacity evaluation and discovery costs necessary, and held the claimed disbursements would cause undue hardship.
Application under the Disbursements and Expert Evidence Regulation partially allowed. Expert report and mediation disbursements were excluded, but IME travel costs were not.
Explore more
