|
Evidence - Expert - Practice. Abboud v. Intact Insurance Co.
In Abboud v. Intact Insurance Co. (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a SABS auto insurance appeal, here from LAT orders "denying his claim to be catastrophically impaired and denying related benefits claims".
Here the court sets out, with approval, the LAT's rationale for discounting the expert evidence submitted:[2] The original LAT decision turned on an analysis of the expert evidence related to catastrophic impairment. The LAT determined that the Appellant’s expert evidence was conclusory and failed to include a path of reasoning that explained the expert’s opinion. The Respondent’s expert did provide an analysis that explained their opinion, and the LAT found the opinion persuasive and supported by the factual record. Therefore, the LAT concluded that the claim for catastrophic impairment had not been proven by the Appellant.
....
[14] The LAT treated Dr Ofokansi’s assessment as being in evidence. The LAT found that the assessment was not supported by analysis and did not reference source opinions or medical data. Rather, it found that the assessment was entirely conclusory and thus should be given no weight. From this finding it followed that the Appellant had not met his statutory burden to support his claim with an “assessment or examination” from a physician.
[15] I see no error in principle in the LAT’s reasoning on this point. A bald conclusion, unsupported by analysis, and without reference to supporting opinions and medical data on which it was based, may not be entitled to any weight: the law is well-established that a bald authoritative claim by an expert is not a sufficient basis for an expert opinion.
|
