Steve Clarke

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act.

The vehicle was impounded after her estranged partner drove it while subject to an ignition interlock condition.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time of the impoundment.

The Tribunal found the appellant credible and accepted that her estranged partner took the vehicle without her consent and with the intent to deprive her of it temporarily.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the impounded vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle, which was seized when her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant filed her notice of appeal one day late due to technical issues and brought a motion to extend the time to appeal.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the extension, finding a bona fide intention to appeal and no prejudice to the respondent.

On the merits, the Tribunal found that the impoundment caused exceptional hardship because the appellant had no alternative transportation and required the vehicle to attend medical appointments following recent surgeries.

The Tribunal ordered the Registrar to release the impounded vehicle.

The appellant appealed the 45-day impoundment of her motor vehicle under the Highway Traffic Act after her son was caught driving it with a suspended licence.

The appellant argued the vehicle was stolen at the time of the impoundment.

The Tribunal found that the appellant's son took the vehicle keys from her purse while she was sleeping, without her consent, and with the intent to temporarily deprive her of the vehicle.

The Tribunal concluded the vehicle was stolen within the meaning of the Act and ordered the Registrar to release the vehicle and reimburse the towing and impound charges.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered an accident-related psychological condition (depression and vehicular anxiety), which removed him from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for the chiropractic treatment plans, finding them not reasonable and necessary as the applicant had reached maximum therapeutic benefit and lacked corroborating objective medical evidence for physical impairments.

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

The applicant sought entitlement to a treatment plan for chiropractic services in the amount of $4,383.90, along with interest and a special award, following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide corroborating, contemporaneous medical evidence to establish that the proposed treatment plan was reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed, and the claims for interest and a special award were denied.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and an attendant care assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous corroborating medical evidence to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's family doctor did not recommend physiotherapy, and an insurer's examination concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The application was dismissed in its entirety, including claims for interest and a special award.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and psychological treatment plans following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his onus to prove the psychological treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, as no evidence or submissions were provided for it.

Regarding the physiotherapy plan, the Tribunal preferred the objective findings of the insurer's medical examination over the applicant's subjective complaints, concluding the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also found that while the insurer's denial was late, the applicant was not entitled to relief under s. 38(11) because no expenses were incurred during the delay period.

Claims for interest and a s. 10 award were dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition, chronic pain with functional impairment, or a psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans were not payable and no interest was owed.