Rachel Levitsky

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's psychological evidence unpersuasive, noting a lack of corroboration in clinical records and preferring the respondent's psychological assessment which found no substantive psychological impairment.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG, dismissing the claims for psychological treatment, assessment, and interest.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming his injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, noting inconsistencies in the medical records and a lack of evidence connecting his ongoing complaints to the accident.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, his claims for additional treatment plans, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit (NEB) and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet the high threshold of demonstrating a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's medical experts, noting a lack of qualitative analysis of pre-accident activities and unexplained inconsistencies in self-reported functionality.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, catastrophic impairment assessments, and physiotherapy treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims.

The non-earner benefit claim was statute-barred due to the late submission of the disability certificate and the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The catastrophic impairment assessments were denied as the applicant provided insufficient medical evidence to justify the need for further investigation.

The physiotherapy claims were dismissed because the applicant failed to address the specific provider rates in dispute.

Claims for interest and a section 10 award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, psychological impairments, and a hernia.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove chronic pain with functional impairment, noting he did not meet the AMA Guides criteria.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessment over the applicant's social worker letter, finding no psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG.

The applicant was held to remain within the MIG and was denied the disputed treatment plans and interest.

The applicant sought increased income replacement benefits (IRBs), interest, and a special award following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that because the applicant was both employed and self-employed, he could not calculate his gross annual employment income based solely on the four weeks prior to the accident under s. 4(2)1 of the Schedule.

The claim for increased IRBs and further interest was dismissed.

However, the Tribunal granted a 10% special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664, finding that the respondent unreasonably delayed calculating and paying the IRBs for several months without a compelling explanation.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on psychological conditions and a head injury.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological symptoms were clinically associated sequelae to his minor injuries and preferred the insurer's psychological assessment over the treating physicians' notes.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a neurological impairment or brain injury.

Consequently, the applicant was held to be subject to the MIG, and the claims for treatment plans, interest, and a section 10 award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a chronic pain assessment and a psychological assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the assessments were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of compelling contemporaneous medical evidence to support ongoing pain or psychological symptoms years after the accident.

The application was dismissed, and no award or interest was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing she should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's psychological assessment unpersuasive, noting ambiguities about the supervising psychological associate's involvement and unexplained contradictions regarding the applicant's pre-existing mental health history.

As the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that she sustained a psychological condition warranting removal from the MIG, her claim for a psychological assessment and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after falling from a Boomer Beast mobility scooter.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the incident was not an 'accident' because the scooter was not an automobile.

The Tribunal applied the Adams and Grummett tests, finding the Boomer Beast is an automobile in ordinary parlance as it is designed for use on public roads.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for a $2,486 attendant care assessment, finding insufficient evidence that the assessment was necessary to prepare an attendant care needs form.

The applicant sought payment for a treatment plan totaling $7,370.81 for catastrophic assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent had approved portions of the plan but denied costs for clinical file reviews, transportation, and travel time.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the denied portions were reasonable and necessary, noting that file reviews are subsumed within the $2,000 assessment limit under s. 25(5) of the Schedule.

The claims for the treatment plan, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The parties agreed on the applicant's entitlement to IRBs at $400 per week, but disputed the effective date, repayment of alleged overpayments, interest, and a special award.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not prove entitlement to $400 per week starting July 1, 2022.

The Tribunal dismissed the insurer's claim for repayment of over $17,000, finding it failed to prove an overpayment or provide proper notice.

The Tribunal awarded interest on two delayed lump sum payments, finding the insurer had sufficient information to calculate the benefits earlier.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered a $2,000 special award against the insurer for unreasonably delaying the proper calculation of benefits and baselessly holding the prospect of repayment over the applicant.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for a catastrophic assessment treatment plan and an income replacement calculation report.

The adjudicator found a material error of fact regarding a March 12, 2021 notice letter, which failed to comply with s. 38(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

A rehearing was ordered to determine if sufficient notice was provided prior to the treatment plan being incurred.

The request for reconsideration regarding the income replacement calculation report was dismissed, as the applicant failed to establish an error of law or fact.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found he was not involved in an 'accident' and allowed the insurer to terminate and seek repayment of benefits due to misrepresentation.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and erred in law by denying his request to adjourn the written hearing to an in-person hearing to assess credibility.

The Tribunal denied the reconsideration, finding the applicant had ample prior opportunity to request an oral hearing or submit affidavit evidence but failed to do so, and that the original decision relied on expert engineering evidence contradicting the applicant's sworn statements rather than a simple credibility assessment.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was the calculation of the IRB quantum for a self-employed individual.

The adjudicator determined that the applicant's IRB must be calculated based on her last completed taxation year prior to the accident, resulting in a quantum of $38.00 per week.

The adjudicator also found that the respondent failed to pay the benefit within the required time after receiving the disability certificate, entitling the applicant to interest on the overdue payments.

However, the applicant's claim for a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed, as the respondent's delay was not found to be excessive or imprudent.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claims for an income replacement indemnity and a pain and suffering indemnity following a motor vehicle accident in Quebec.

The applicant alleged errors of law and fact, as well as a breach of procedural fairness, under Rule 18.2 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to establish any errors of law or fact that would have changed the outcome of the original decision, noting the lack of medical evidence to support his claims.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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).

The applicant contended that a right shoulder injury requiring surgery warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the shoulder injury was caused by the accident, noting a two-year delay in reporting the pain and medical records suggesting a workplace injury.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the claims for treatment plans, attendant care, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The appellant's vehicle was impounded for driving in contravention of an ignition interlock condition on his licence.

He filed an appeal two days after the 15-day deadline and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

Applying the four-factor test from Manuel, the Tribunal found that while the delay was short and there was a bona fide intention to appeal, the appeal lacked merit because the appellant conceded the ignition interlock condition was in place at the time of impoundment.

The motion to extend time was dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend his driver's licence due to a medical condition.

The appellant failed to attend the hearing despite receiving notice.

Relying on an unsolicited Medical Condition Report indicating a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, and applying the CCMTA Medical Standards for Drivers, the Tribunal found that the appellant suffers from a medical condition likely to significantly interfere with his ability to drive safely.

The licence suspension was confirmed.

The applicant and respondent both requested reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The applicant sought reconsideration regarding the denial of income replacement benefits and treatment plans, while the respondent challenged the finding that the applicant was involved in an 'accident' and not subject to the Minor Injury Guideline.

The adjudicator found that neither party met the high threshold for reconsideration under Rule 18.2, as both were attempting to re-litigate issues and re-weigh evidence already considered.

Both requests for reconsideration were dismissed.