Matthew Frontini

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal order dismissing her application for auto insurance dispute resolution as abandoned after she and her counsel failed to attend two consecutive case conferences.

The applicant argued that a case management officer's email created a legitimate expectation that a new case conference would be scheduled, and that the Tribunal erred in law by not personally serving her with notice under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the email lacked the certainty required to create a legitimate expectation, especially given a prior clear order warning of dismissal.

The Tribunal also held that service on counsel constituted reasonable notice under the SPPA, and that counsel's administrative error in diarizing the date did not warrant reconsideration.

The Applicant sought reconsideration of a Tribunal order dismissing her application for failing to attend a case conference.

The Applicant argued that a case management officer's email created a legitimate expectation of a rescheduled hearing, that the Tribunal erred in law by not personally serving her under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, and that the Tribunal made a factual error regarding her attendance at a previous conference.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no breach of procedural fairness, as the officer's statement lacked certainty and the Applicant had clear notice of the consequences of non-attendance.

The Tribunal also held that service on counsel constituted reasonable notice under the SPPA and that the factual error was not significant enough to alter the outcome.

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

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

The applicant claimed removal from the MIG was warranted due to psychological injuries, chronic pain, and a pre-existing right knee condition.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet his burden of demonstrating his injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's, found no objective evidence of chronic pain, and concluded the pre-existing knee condition did not preclude recovery from the accident-related injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit following a motor vehicle accident, claiming psychological injuries and chronic pain.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries were minor.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological and medical evidence, which indicated symptom magnification and malingering, over the applicant's evidence.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries fell within the MIG and, as the funding limit was exhausted, dismissed the application for further medical benefits, interest, and an award.