Avvy Go

The applicant sought $2,200 for a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefit.

At the hearing, the respondent brought a preliminary motion to exclude late-filed medical evidence submitted by the applicant.

The adjudicator admitted the evidence but ordered the applicant to pay $300 in costs for breaching the case conference order.

On the substantive issue, the adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the chronic pain assessment was reasonable and necessary, noting a pre-existing history of back pain and relying on the respondent's independent medical examination which concluded the applicant did not have chronic pain syndrome.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought Non-Earner Benefits (NEB) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the NEB, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly soft tissue injuries falling within the MIG.

Relying on Independent Medical Examinations and the applicant's family physician's clinical notes, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application for NEB and interest was dismissed.

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

The respondent insurer denied certain benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly soft tissue injuries subject to the MIG, and that he failed to establish any pre-existing condition that would impede his recovery.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claims for non-earner benefits, finding no evidence of a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as well as claims for physiotherapy, emergency services expenses, and a special award.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded after she allowed an employee with a suspended licence to drive it.

She appealed the impoundment to the Licence Appeal Tribunal on the basis of exceptional hardship, citing financial difficulties and the need for a vehicle for her business.

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that while the impoundment caused financial hardship, the appellant had reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, such as a company car, a newly purchased vehicle, and public transit.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for psychological assessments, psychological treatment, and physiotherapy.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the proposed treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's experts, who found minimal psycho-emotional distress and no objective evidence of physical impairment, over the conflicting and inconsistent reports of the applicant's experts.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a cyclist injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) after the respondent insurer terminated them.

The adjudicator reviewed the medical evidence, including multiple Insurer's Examinations, which concluded the applicant could perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a prep cook/dishwasher.

The applicant failed to provide contradictory medical evidence to meet his burden of proof.

The application for both pre-104 week and post-104 week IRBs was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing that it would result in exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's son allowed a suspended driver to operate it.

The Tribunal found that while the impoundment caused financial and emotional stress, the appellant and her husband had access to two other vehicles.

Because an alternative to the impounded vehicle was available, the appellant failed to establish exceptional hardship.

The impoundment was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar's proposal to refuse his registration as a real estate salesperson.

The Registrar based its refusal on the appellant's prior criminal convictions for assault and his failure to pay a $10,000 fine imposed by a discipline panel.

The Tribunal found that the Registrar did not prove the appellant would fail to conduct business with honesty and integrity, noting he had served his sentence and maintained employment.

However, the Tribunal concluded the appellant could not reasonably be expected to be financially responsible, as he failed to pay the fine despite earning over $225,000 annually.

The appeal was dismissed and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing hypothyroidism and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that her pre-existing condition prevented her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG cap, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's.

All claims for benefits were dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $200 in costs for repeatedly filing evidence late.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy, chiropractic, and massage therapy, relying on an insurer's examination that placed the applicant's injuries within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), despite having previously removed the applicant from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also approved the outstanding $200 for a psychological assessment, finding the difference in estimated hours insignificant.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments but denied an award under Regulation 664, as there was insufficient evidence of bad faith or unreasonable delay by the respondent.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of his vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant's daughter's friend drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant argued that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because his wife, who has medical issues, and his son, who has Down syndrome, rely on the vehicle.

The Tribunal found that the appellant had alternative transportation options, as his other daughters were assisting with driving and he owned a second vehicle for commuting.

The appeal was dismissed and the impoundment was confirmed.

The Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards proposed to refuse to issue a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station (MVIS) licence and mechanic registration to the appellant due to a history of violations and convictions under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant appealed the proposal, arguing that the violations occurred during a period of significant personal disruption involving a difficult custody battle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's past conduct, viewed in the context of his family circumstances, did not provide reasonable grounds to believe he would fail to operate the station in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The appeal was allowed and the Director was ordered to reinstate the licence and registration.

The applicant sought entitlement to an income replacement benefit, medical benefits for physiotherapy, and the costs of psychological and orthopaedic assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims for the income replacement benefit, physiotherapy, and orthopaedic assessment, finding insufficient medical evidence for the IRB and noting that the treatment plans for physiotherapy and orthopaedics were improperly delivered to the wrong insurer.

However, the Tribunal granted the cost of the psychological assessment, finding the respondent's denial unreasonable as it relied on an unhelpful and generalized independent examination report that failed to adequately address the applicant's psychological symptoms.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for 90 days after her son drove it while his licence was suspended.

The appellant appealed the impoundment to the Licence Appeal Tribunal on the ground of exceptional hardship, citing her medical condition, residence in a remote northern community, and need to travel for fresh produce.

Although the Tribunal found that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship, the appeal was dismissed because the Highway Traffic Act prohibits relying on the ground of exceptional hardship if the vehicle has been previously impounded, which had occurred a year prior.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident, which the insurer denied.

The applicant filed an application to the Licence Appeal Tribunal more than two years after the denial.

The applicant argued that the discoverability rule should apply due to a delayed diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, and that the limitation period should be extended due to mental incapacity from cancer treatment.

The Tribunal held that the discoverability rule does not apply to the Schedule's complete code and found insufficient evidence of incapacity to warrant an extension.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and psychological services.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans based on insurer examinations which found no objective physical impairments and concluded that the applicant's psychological symptoms were related to pre-existing behavioural issues rather than the accident.

The adjudicator agreed with the respondent's medical experts, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit, medical cannabis, and osteopathy treatments (including a treadmill and vaporizer).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the non-earner benefit, finding the applicant was still able to perform many self-care and daily living activities.

However, the Tribunal granted the medical benefits for medical cannabis and osteopathy, finding them reasonable and necessary given the applicant's ongoing pain and the recommendations of his treating practitioners.

Interest on overdue payments was also awarded.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

Procedurally, the Tribunal excluded surveillance evidence submitted late by the respondent in breach of a prior order, awarding $300 in costs to the applicant.

Substantively, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

Consequently, the applicant's claims for medical and rehabilitation benefits beyond the $3,500 cap were dismissed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found the applicant was entitled to $1,070 for assistive devices, as they were reasonable and necessary to treat accident-related pain, despite the applicant's concurrent pregnancy.

Claims for a cast and crutches were dismissed as abandoned, and a claim for chiropractic services was dismissed because the applicant had several unexhausted approved treatment plans for similar physical therapies.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payment for the assistive devices.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and psychological assessments.

The respondent insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that his pre-existing left ankle injury, lumbar spine degeneration, or alleged psychological issues prevented him from achieving maximal recovery under the MIG cap.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the injuries were predominantly minor, the MIG limits were exhausted, and the proposed treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.