Joseph Nemet

The applicant sought attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), her psychological impairments (Major Depressive Disorder and Generalized Anxiety Disorder) took her outside the MIG.

However, the claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove the expenses were 'incurred' under section 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The evidence regarding care provided by family members was vague, lacked corroboration, and failed to establish economic loss or that the care was provided in the course of ordinary employment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

During a case conference, the applicant sought to withdraw the application, prompting the respondent insurer to bring a motion for costs, arguing the applicant acted frivolously by proceeding without supporting evidence.

The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the costs motion despite the withdrawal.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the motion, concluding the applicant had a bona fide reason to dispute the claim denial and did not act frivolously, vexatiously, or in bad faith.