Lan An

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and the cost of an attendant care assessment.

The respondent denied the claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for his delay in providing financial documents.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was entitled to income replacement benefits because his injuries caused a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his import-export business.

However, the claims for attendant care benefits and the cost of examination were dismissed because the applicant failed to prove that his care provider suffered an economic loss or that the assessment was reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits after the respondent terminated them.

The applicant, a personal support worker, returned to work on modified duties and reduced hours.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered soft tissue injuries to her cervical and lumbar spine, rendering her substantially unable to perform the physically demanding essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the income replacement benefits with interest, but declined to award costs as the applicant failed to provide evidence of unreasonable conduct by the respondent.

In a dispute over income replacement benefits, the respondent raised a preliminary issue seeking to exclude four sets of documents submitted by the applicant, arguing they breached a prior Tribunal order and disclosure rules.

The adjudicator found no breach of the prior order.

Three documents were served within the filing deadline and were admitted.

The fourth document, an expert report, was served late under Rule 10.

Applying Rule 3.1 to liberally interpret the rules, the adjudicator admitted the expert report as relevant and necessary, curing any prejudice by granting the respondent 30 days to review and respond to it.

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

The respondent denied four treatment plans, arguing two were statute-barred and the applicant's injuries fell within the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The Tribunal found the first treatment plan was statute-barred but the second was not.

While the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, compelling evidence of a pre-existing degenerative disc disease demonstrated he could not achieve maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

However, the applicant failed to provide evidence or submissions proving the remaining treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, resulting in their dismissal.

No costs were awarded.