Gary Harvey

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including treatment plans for physiotherapy, an attendant care assessment, a psychological assessment, and an orthopaedic surgery assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits, initially relying on the Minor Injury Guideline before removing the applicant due to pre-existing psychological issues.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove the physiotherapy, attendant care assessment, and orthopaedic assessment were reasonable and necessary, citing a lack of supporting medical evidence and normal imaging.

However, the Tribunal granted the psychological assessment, finding sufficient evidence of a pre-existing psychological condition that flared up post-accident to warrant further investigation.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was seized when her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant failed to exercise due diligence because she relied on assumptions rather than verifying her son's licence status.

The Tribunal also found the impoundment would not cause exceptional hardship, as the appellant failed to demonstrate that she had explored all reasonable transportation alternatives, including assistance from other family members or renting a vehicle.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence after receiving a medical report indicating he had suffered a seizure due to alcohol withdrawal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from alcohol use disorder and that this condition is likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

Applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal noted the appellant had not yet completed his treatment program or demonstrated a sufficient period of abstinence.

The appeal was dismissed and the licence suspension was confirmed.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was seized when another individual was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the impoundment would cause exceptional hardship because she needed the vehicle to transport her elderly grandmother to medical appointments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to prove there were no reasonable alternatives to the impounded vehicle, as she had access to taxis, ride-sharing services, accessible public transit, and a second vehicle requiring repairs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her psychological impairments warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found the applicant's psychological assessment unreliable due to inconsistencies in self-reporting and lack of clarity regarding the assessors' roles.

Preferring the respondent's psychological assessment, the adjudicator concluded the applicant did not suffer a psychological condition removing her from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claim for a psychological assessment and interest was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of his vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after it was driven by an employee whose licence was suspended for a Criminal Code conviction.

The appellant argued he exercised due diligence by verbally asking the driver if he had a valid licence.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant failed to take reasonable steps, such as requesting to see the physical licence or conducting an online check, which he regularly did for other employees.

The appellant corporation appealed the impoundment of its motor vehicle under section 50.2 of the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the vehicle was stolen at the time of impoundment.

At the hearing, the parties discussed alternative options to resolve the issue, as the vehicle was being rented out at the time.

The appellant subsequently withdrew the application, and the Tribunal closed the file.

The appellant appealed the impoundment of her vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing it would cause exceptional hardship.

The vehicle was impounded after the appellant was caught driving with a suspended licence.

The Tribunal found that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because the appellant and her partner lived in a rural area with no public transit, and the lack of a vehicle threatened the partner's employment and the health and safety of their newborn child.

The appeal was allowed and the Registrar was ordered to release the vehicle.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for occupational therapy and chiropractic treatment, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the proposed occupational therapy was reasonable and necessary given the applicant's ongoing post-concussive symptoms and pre-accident history of concussions, preferring the treating occupational therapist's recommendations over the insurer's assessments.

However, the Tribunal denied the claim for chiropractic treatment, noting that extensive prior sessions had yielded no improvement in the applicant's chronic pain.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding no evidence that the insurer acted unreasonably in its handling of the claims.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the occupational therapy treatment plus interest.

The minor applicant was struck by a dump truck while in a stroller in 2010.

He sought statutory accident benefits for various treatment plans, which the respondent insurer denied based on insurer examinations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to optometric services, speech language therapy, and certain assistive devices (a curved monitor and wobble stool), preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating practitioners over the respondent's paper reviews.

However, the Tribunal denied funding for a gaming computer and a YMCA summer camp/membership, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit due to post-concussion syndrome and dysthymic mood.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a causal connection between the accident and the alleged psychological or concussive conditions, noting a lack of pre-accident medical records and a significant gap before symptoms were reported.

Relying on the respondent's section 44 assessment, the Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries.

The application was dismissed, and no further benefits or interest were awarded.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from chronic pain with functional impairment or a psychological injury caused by the accident that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical and psychological assessments.

As the MIG limit was exhausted, the claims for treatment plans and interest were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to a pre-existing psychological condition, an accident-related psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove that a pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery, preferred the respondent's psychological assessment finding no accident-related psychological impairment, and found insufficient evidence of chronic pain.

The application was dismissed.