https://www5.fsco.gov.on.ca/AD/2313
On the other hand, I have continuing references in reports to ongoing dental problems, as well as the unchallenged testimony of the Applicant. The CAT DAC report, itself, notes continuing complaints in this regard, but as Dr. Ameis conceded, “all of us may have missed the dietary problems arising from the facial smash.” Dr. Ameis was of the view, however, that there was insufficient information to presently make a rating; he recommended repeating the CAT DAC. He was of the view that a nutritionist, a dentist or a dental specialist was required.
The search for the truth is crucially important. Finality and cost effectiveness is also important. Having had a chance to review the medical documentation and to examine Ms. G, and having failed to properly assess all of her impairments, the present applicable remedy in this particular case is not a “do over” by the CAT DAC, which may then require assessments by other practitioners, followed by recalling witnesses or calling new experts. Rather, in my view, the proper course is for an adjudicative assessment to be made as best one can on the basis of the available evidence. I am strengthened in this decision by a concern in this specific case as to whether the open minded neutrality expected of a CAT DAC may be somewhat clouded by, perhaps subconsciously, a very human impulse to sometimes endeavour to justify one’s prior conclusion.