Mary Henein Thorn

The applicant, who sustained catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident, sought $365,257.00 for home modifications to her daughter's house, arguing her current condominium could not be safely modified.

The respondent had approved $22,825.53 for modifications to her current unit.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that her current residence could not be modified, as she provided no evidence that the condominium management company had formally denied the proposed modifications.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for the balance of a home modification assessment, capping it at the $2,000 statutory maximum, and denied claims for an award and interest.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule due to mental or behavioural disorders following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal reviewed expert evidence and the applicant's self-reported activities, including maintaining sobriety, driving long distances, and regaining custody of her children.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's experts, finding that the applicant's impairments in social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation did not reach the marked (Class 4) level required for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The application was dismissed.

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

The insurer denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from psychological impairments, including Major Depressive Disorder, which warranted her removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for a psychological assessment, psychological treatment, and a laptop required to access virtual therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic, along with interest on overdue payments.

The applicant's claim for a special award under Regulation 664 was dismissed, as the insurer's denial was not found to be unreasonable.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired and denying various benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by inserting causation as an issue in dispute when it was not listed in the Case Conference Report and Order.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that deciding the issue of causation without notice denied the applicant the right to fairly present evidence and argument.

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

The applicant insurer requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that denied its claim for repayment of Income Replacement Benefits.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in law by treating the respondent's written submissions as testimony and by failing to attribute the conduct of the respondent's former counsel to the respondent.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that while it incorrectly referred to submissions as testimony, the error was not significant enough to change the outcome.

The Tribunal also found no error in treating the respondent and his former counsel as separate entities, given a court order had removed the counsel from the file.

The applicant sought a determination that his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and claimed entitlement to a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to determine the MIG issue on a stand-alone basis without an underlying dispute over a specific medical benefit.

On the substantive claim, the Tribunal found the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he continued to work as an independent contractor and maintained most of his pre-accident daily activities.

The Tribunal also found the insurer's denial letters were compliant with the Schedule and dismissed the claims for an award and interest.

The applicant sought an adjournment of a videoconference hearing due to her counsel's ongoing medical condition.

The Tribunal noted this was the second adjournment request for the same reason and that counsel had sufficient time to arrange alternative representation.

Applying Rule 16 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, the adjudicator denied the adjournment.

Following the denial, the applicant's counsel withdrew the application.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of $10,900 in Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) paid to the respondent, alleging that the respondent wilfully misrepresented his employment status by failing to notify the insurer when he returned to work.

The respondent argued that he had immediately notified his former legal counsel and provided his first paystub, and had also attempted to contact the insurer directly but was told they could only speak to his counsel.

The Tribunal found that the respondent took proactive and reasonable steps to notify the insurer of his return to work and did not remain silent or provide false information.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the insurer failed to prove wilful misrepresentation or fraud, and dismissed the claim for repayment.

The Tribunal also found no binding agreement for repayment and declined to award costs or interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and psychological services.

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

The applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to psychological impairments, specifically driver anxiety.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony inconsistent and unsubstantiated, preferring the respondent's psychological assessment which found insufficient evidence of impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, he remained subject to the MIG limits, and dismissed the claims for treatment plans and interest.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic lower back pain resulting from accident-related weight gain.

The applicant also sought non-earner benefits, arguing she was unable to return to her pre-accident work as a Personal Support Worker.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG, noting her weight gain was not demonstrably caused by functional limitations from the accident.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant's current duties as a foster parent were inconsistent with a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The self-represented applicant sought various statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and several treatment and assessment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applicant should be barred from proceeding due to a failure to attend insurer's examinations.

The adjudicator found the respondent failed to prove proper notice of the examinations was given, allowing the hearing to proceed.

However, the applicant provided no documentary evidence or substantive testimony to support his claims, arguing only that he paid his insurance premiums and should therefore be entitled to benefits.

The adjudicator dismissed all claims, finding the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving entitlement on a balance of probabilities.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment and entitlement to income replacement benefits, treatment plans, and a special award.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were caused by a prior 2015 accident, pre-existing conditions, and subsequent unrelated incidents.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her injuries were caused by the 2017 accident, noting her failure to follow medical advice regarding the prolonged use of a knee brace.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, treatment plans, and the special award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The self-represented applicant repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to attend the final days of the hearing without sufficient medical justification.

The Tribunal proceeded in his absence.

The Tribunal found the claim for non-earner benefits was statute-barred as it was filed beyond the two-year limitation period.

The applicant failed to provide evidence to support entitlement to attendant care benefits or the reasonableness and necessity of proposed occupational therapy.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant was struck by a motor vehicle while riding his bicycle and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under criteria 6 (brain injury) and 8 (mental or behavioural disorder) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant relied heavily on a revised incident report from a paramedic indicating a depressed Glasgow Coma Scale score, which contradicted the original reports showing a perfect score.

The Tribunal found the revised report lacked credibility and rejected the expert opinions relying upon it.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove he sustained a brain injury or a resulting mental and behavioural disorder, and dismissed the application for catastrophic impairment, an award, interest, and costs.

The applicant was a passenger in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and funding for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting inconsistencies between her self-reported psychological symptoms and her family doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant could still engage in most of her pre-accident activities of daily living, albeit at a slower pace.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

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

The applicant, who was self-represented, failed to attend the scheduled videoconference hearing despite receiving due notice.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to section 7(1) of the Statutory Power Procedures Act.

Because the applicant presented no evidence to meet his burden of proof, the Tribunal found his injuries were predominantly minor and dismissed his claims for income replacement benefits, treatment plans, and an award.