E. Louise Logan

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired and not entitled to attendant care benefits or a special award.

The applicant argued the initial decision lacked adequate reasons, constituting a breach of procedural fairness and an error of law.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the initial adjudicator's reasons meaningfully grappled with the key issues and evidence, including the competing expert reports on catastrophic impairment and attendant care.

The Tribunal concluded there was no error of law, fact, or breach of procedural fairness that would warrant a reconsideration.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found the applicant entitled to a psychological assessment treatment plan, interest, and a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request regarding the treatment plan and interest, finding the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction and any factual errors would not have changed the outcome.

However, the Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration regarding the special award, finding the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness by failing to provide reasons or specify the award percentage.

Upon varying the decision, the Vice-Chair found the insurer's conduct in handling duplicate treatment plans was not excessive or imprudent, and vacated the special award.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found the respondent insurer did not unreasonably delay the payment of medical or rehabilitation benefits and dismissed the applicant's claims.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact, violated procedural fairness, and that new evidence was available.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant failed to meet the high threshold under Rule 18.2.

The Vice-Chair also struck portions of the applicant's reply submissions that improperly raised allegations of bias for the first time.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to Income Replacement Benefits.

The applicant argued that new evidence demonstrated the respondent failed to comply with PIPEDA and the Schedule, that the Tribunal made errors of law and fact regarding the necessity of functional capacity examinations and the adequacy of IE notices, and that there was a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Tribunal struck the applicant's bias arguments raised for the first time in reply submissions.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the proposed new evidence did not meet the test for admission, the Tribunal did not err in its interpretation of the Schedule or its assessment of the IE notices, and the applicant failed to establish any reasonable apprehension of bias.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by ordering a written hearing without affidavit evidence and by failing to consider his filed evidence.

The Vice-Chair found no breach regarding the hearing format, as the Tribunal has the authority to control its procedure.

However, the Vice-Chair found a material breach of procedural fairness because the original adjudicator explicitly stated they could not locate the applicant's medical report, which had been properly filed and tabbed.

The reconsideration request was granted, the original decision cancelled, and a new written hearing ordered before a different adjudicator.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that dismissed his claim for lack of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal had previously ruled it could not adjudicate the dispute because the applicant had not met the mandatory requirements under section 9.1(8) of Regulation 664 to rescind a settlement agreement.

On reconsideration, the applicant argued the Tribunal failed to consider his submissions and reiterated that the settlement did not cover rehabilitation benefits.

The Vice-Chair found no error of law or fact, concluding the original decision properly considered the submissions and correctly determined the jurisdictional issue.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he was not catastrophically impaired.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by providing inadequate reasons and made errors of law and fact by misapprehending expert evidence and relying solely on the OCF-19 application.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the original decision's reasons were adequate, the Tribunal properly weighed the evidence in accordance with the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, and the applicant was merely attempting to re-litigate the case.

The applicant requested reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that barred him from proceeding with his claim for accident benefits due to his failure to notify the insurer of his intention to apply within seven days.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by deciding an issue without notice and erred in its interpretation of section 32(1) of the Schedule.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the parties had explicitly agreed to the wording of the preliminary issue and that the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the Tribunal's interpretation of the Schedule without establishing an error of law.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders) following a 2012 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment evaluation was conducted in compliance with section 45(2)1 of the Schedule.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not sustain a Marked (Class 4) impairment in the domain of Adaptation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's experts, finding that the applicant's self-reporting was unreliable and that his psychological impairments did not significantly impede his useful functioning.

The applicants, the spouse and dependents of a victim of an impaired driving accident, sought reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that found they were not insured persons under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS).

The applicants argued the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of section 3(1)(a)(ii) by requiring a physical injury and misapprehended medical evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome, and declined to hear constitutional arguments because the Notice of Constitutional Question was not filed in compliance with the Rules.

The appellant requested a reconsideration of an interlocutory order that denied an adjournment of a scheduled videoconference hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that Rule 18.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023 only permits reconsideration of decisions that finally dispose of an appeal.

The Tribunal declined to exercise its discretion to vary the rules, noting that the appellant's reliance on an outdated version of the rules did not warrant an exception.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for an Income Replacement Benefit, an occupational therapy treatment plan, and an award under section 10 of Regulation 664.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by providing inadequate reasons and relying on a sur-reply, and that it made errors of law and fact regarding the causation of his psychological impairments.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the original decision was well-reasoned, the applicant had failed to object to the sur-reply prior to the hearing, and the applicant was improperly attempting to re-litigate the Tribunal's assessment of the evidence.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to post-104 week Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs).

The applicant argued that the Tribunal violated procedural fairness by allowing the respondent to shield an expert witness from cross-examination, and that the Tribunal made errors of law or fact by providing inadequate reasons and failing to consider critical evidence.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the issue of the witness was properly addressed in a prior motion order and that the original decision met the legal standard for adequate reasons.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was attempting to relitigate the issues and reweigh the evidence, which are not valid grounds for reconsideration.

The respondent insurer sought reconsideration of a Tribunal decision awarding the applicant post-104 week Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs).

The insurer argued the Tribunal applied the wrong legal test by referencing the applicant's inability to return to 'full-time' work rather than a 'complete inability' to engage in any employment.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the Tribunal had correctly stated the post-104 week test and properly concluded, based on the evidence of the applicant's need for pacing and extended breaks, that she suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claim for an income replacement benefit.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to consider medical evidence regarding his psychological condition and acidosis, and erred in its treatment of expert witnesses.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact and no violation of procedural fairness.

The Vice-Chair also held that the new evidence submitted by the applicant did not meet the test for reconsideration, as it was an attempt to relitigate the case and there was no explanation for why it was not available at the initial hearing.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying a physiotherapy treatment plan, medication expenses, interest, and a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact and violated procedural fairness by allegedly failing to consider submissions on the special award for non-earner benefits and by not adequately reviewing evidence for the treatment plan and expenses.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the original decision properly addressed the issues, applied the correct legal tests, and provided adequate reasons.

The applicant sought a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to a treatment plan for psychological services.

The applicant argued under Rule 18.2(b) that the Tribunal made an error of fact by referring to the treatment plan as proposing psychological treatment rather than a psychological assessment.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the applicant had failed to provide the OCF-18 or any supporting submissions at the original hearing.

The Tribunal held that the applicant's failure to meet his evidentiary burden at first instance did not constitute an error of fact by the Tribunal, and the reconsideration request was an improper attempt to re-litigate the case.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that dismissed their application for a treatment plan and interest.

The applicant argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness, made errors of fact and law regarding medical and surveillance evidence, and that new evidence was available.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no violation of procedural fairness in its assignment of adjudicators, no errors in its weighing of the evidence, and that the applicant failed to demonstrate the new evidence could not have been obtained previously.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that found her injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact by not considering her evidence, but failed to specify the errors in her initial submissions and improperly raised new arguments in her reply.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding the applicant did not establish grounds under Rule 18.2(b) as she failed to identify specific errors or how they would have affected the outcome.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found his injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law and fact but failed to specify the errors in his initial submissions.

The Tribunal declined to consider new arguments raised in the applicant's reply submissions, finding them improper.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed as the applicant did not establish grounds under Rule 18.2(b).