Adina Strom

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer scheduled section 44 insurer's examinations, which the applicant refused to attend because she objected to a check box on the clinic's consent form requiring confirmation that she provided photo identification.

The Tribunal found the insurer's consent form requirement to be reasonable and the applicant's refusal to attend unreasonable.

Consequently, the applicant is statute-barred under section 55 of the Schedule from proceeding with her application until she attends the examinations.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied treatment plans for chiropractic services and post-concussive therapy.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by failing to properly weigh the medical evidence, specifically the reports of an optometrist and a psychologist.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding that the original decision correctly weighed the evidence and that the applicant was improperly attempting to re-argue her case.

No error of law or fact was established.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that awarded a specific amount for income replacement benefits but denied two claimed medical benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to consider her arguments and made errors of law and fact regarding passive income deductions and the necessity of psychological assessments.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness and concluding that the applicant was merely attempting to re-argue positions that had already been considered and rejected.

The appellant, Travelers Insurance Company, appealed an arbitrator's decision that it was the priority insurer for statutory accident benefits following an accident in Nunavut.

The arbitrator found Travelers liable because it was an Ontario insurer, had filed a Power of Attorney and Undertaking (PAU) in Ontario, and was the insurer of the car involved.

Travelers argued the arbitrator erred by applying Ontario law to a Nunavut policy without first determining if the policy provided Ontario benefits coverage.

The court upheld the arbitrator's decision, finding that the standard of review was reasonableness and that Travelers, as an Ontario-licensed insurer and PAU signatory, was bound by Ontario's priority laws, precluding it from denying coverage based on the accident's location.