Robert Watt

The applicant withdrew her application for statutory accident benefits on the morning of the first day of a scheduled five-day hearing.

The respondent requested costs, arguing it had incurred significant preparation expenses and disbursements.

The Tribunal found that the applicant acted unreasonably and interfered with the Tribunal's process by waiting until the hearing began to withdraw without providing reasons.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay the maximum allowable costs of $1,000 to the respondent.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied them non-earner benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and interest.

They argued the Tribunal made an error of law or fact regarding their financial dependency on their daughter and violated procedural fairness by not allowing a videoconference hearing.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicants were merely rearguing their case on the same evidence and that procedural fairness was not violated as they had previously agreed to a written hearing.

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

In a supplementary decision following a reconsideration order, the adjudicator redetermined whether the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and whether she was entitled to income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's chronic pain did not affect her functionality, relying on surveillance evidence, Ontario Works applications indicating no work restrictions, and the respondent's medical assessments.

The evidence of the applicant's occupational therapist was rejected as unreliable.

Consequently, the adjudicator concluded the injuries fell within the MIG and dismissed the claims for IRBs, medical benefits, and interest.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying him non-earner benefits.

He argued the Tribunal erred in fact and law by rejecting certain medical evidence, including a letter from Dr. Galley, and by accepting the evidence of Dr. Dessouki despite alleged procedural flaws.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal properly weighed the evidence, including the applicant's own testimony and family evidence, and correctly applied the legal test for non-earner benefits.

No error of law or fact was established.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for various medical and rehabilitation benefits, including a chronic pain assessment and a sleep assessment.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal made errors of fact and law and violated procedural fairness by preferring the respondent's expert witnesses.

The adjudicator dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding that the applicant was attempting to re-argue her case.

The adjudicator held that the Tribunal correctly applied the test for reasonableness and necessity, properly considered the availability of benefits under OHIP pursuant to section 47(2) of the Schedule, and made no significant legal or evidentiary errors that would have altered the outcome.

The applicant sought attendant care benefits and funding for vision therapy and glasses following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove the benefits were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of independent assessors and the applicant's own self-reporting of independence over the reports of his occupational therapist and optometrist.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision regarding the quantum and duration of Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs).

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in calculating the IRB at $161.44 per week up to October 6, 2020, failing to address ongoing entitlement, and denying an award for unreasonable delay.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no error of law or fact.

The Tribunal correctly relied on the applicant's own accountant's calculations under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The issue of ongoing entitlement was deemed moot as the respondent continued to pay the benefit, and there was no basis to grant an award for unreasonable delay.

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

The respondent insurer requested the applicant attend section 44 examinations to assess her eligibility.

The applicant failed to attend, arguing that she had returned to work and attending would cause her to miss work.

The Tribunal found that missing work was not a valid reason to refuse attendance and that the respondent would be prejudiced by a delayed examination.

Consequently, the applicant was barred from proceeding with her claim for income replacement benefits under section 55 of the Schedule.

The applicants sought statutory accident benefits following their daughter's motor vehicle accident, claiming they were financially dependent on her.

The Tribunal excluded late-filed evidence and found the applicants failed to prove they were more than 50% dependent on their daughter at the time of the accident.

As they did not meet the definition of 'insured persons' under the Schedule, their claims for non-earner benefits and a psychological assessment were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

He failed to submit his application within the 30-day time limit prescribed by the Schedule, submitting it nearly two years later.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not have a reasonable explanation for the delay, rejecting his claim that a difficult property damage settlement prevented him from applying.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a psychological assessment, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained only minor soft tissue injuries and failed to prove chronic pain or a psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary, and no benefits or interest were payable.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying medical and rehabilitation benefits, specifically a chronic pain assessment.

The applicant argued that new IE reports from Dr. Khan and Dr. Kanagaratnam, received after the written submissions deadline but before the decision was rendered, constituted new evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the reports were available seven months before the decision was issued and thus were not new evidence.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the reports would not have changed the original findings regarding the chronic pain assessment.

The applicant failed to attend a preliminary issue videoconference hearing.

The adjudicator was subsequently advised that an administrative error had occurred, and the applicant was given the wrong videoconference link.

To facilitate a fair and accessible process, the adjudicator declined to dismiss the application for abandonment and instead rescheduled the hearing for new dates.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident, including ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) and various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports which found no physical, neurological, or psychological impairments preventing the applicant from working.

The Tribunal also noted the applicant's family doctor refused to complete IRB forms due to a lack of ongoing symptoms.

The claims for medical assessments and treatment plans were denied as they were not reasonable and necessary, and had not been incurred.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, including attendant care, chiropractic treatment, medication, and multiple assessments.

The Tribunal found that the claims for attendant care and initial chiropractic treatment were statute-barred by the two-year limitation period, and the applicant failed to establish reasonable grounds for an extension.

For the remaining substantive claims, the Tribunal concluded the applicant had not met her burden to prove the treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the respondent's medical examiners who opined the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic and physiotherapy services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered predominantly minor injuries, consisting of sprains and strains, and rejected the applicant's claim of chronic pain syndrome.

As the applicant failed to demonstrate that her impairments warranted removal from the MIG and the monetary limits had been exhausted, the claims for medical benefits, interest, and a punitive award were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied entitlement to non-earner benefits and various medical assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal failed to consider evidence and that the respondent did not provide a proper denial.

The Adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal had properly analyzed the evidence, which primarily showed soft tissue injuries, and that no error of law or fact was made that would have led to a different result.

The applicant sought entitlement to the costs of three examinations (a Neurology Assessment, an E.E.G., and an MRI) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming he suffered a head injury causing headaches and pain.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's headaches were cervicogenic and related to a soft-tissue injury.

The Tribunal found no objective medical evidence of a neurological disability or impairment resulting from the accident.

Relying on the reports of the insurer's examiner and other specialists, which aligned with the family doctor's findings, the Tribunal concluded the examinations were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying medical benefits for physiotherapy, a driver evaluation assessment, and a neuropsychological assessment.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law, and breached procedural fairness by relying on the respondent's evidence and failing to reference specific medical reports.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no error in the Tribunal's weighing of evidence or its procedural conduct, and noting that an adjudicator is not required to reference every piece of evidence.

The applicant sought medical benefits for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries, including a partial thickness rotator cuff tear and pre-existing back pain, did not warrant removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.