Louise Bélanger-Hardy

The applicant sought medical benefits for occupational therapy assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant argued the insurer's denial letters failed to comply with the notice requirements under section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the denial letters were compliant.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG.

Consequently, the claim for an in-home assessment was barred by section 25(2) of the Schedule, and the claim for a work site assessment was dismissed for lack of evidence that it was reasonable and necessary.

Following the withdrawal of an application for statutory accident benefits, both the applicant and the respondent brought motions for costs against each other under Rule 19.1 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure.

The Tribunal found that once the application was withdrawn, the matter was finally resolved and the Tribunal no longer had jurisdiction to award costs.

In the alternative, neither party led evidence of unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious behaviour.

Both motions for costs were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit and medical/examination benefits outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence comparing his pre- and post-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that there was no compelling evidence of a pre-existing heart or back condition that would prevent his recovery within the $3,500 MIG limit.

The application was dismissed.