Steve Gilchrist

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 claimed chronic pain and psychological injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the medical evidence did not support the applicant's claims of chronic pain with functional impairment or psychological injury.

The applicant was held within the MIG, and the disputed treatment plans, award, and interest were denied.

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 chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, preferring the insurer's medical and psychological assessments which indicated no functional impairment and no accident-related psychological diagnosis.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological evidence was unpersuasive as it contradicted the clinical notes of his family doctor, and that his physical injuries were soft tissue in nature, resolving within expected timeframes.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and remained within the MIG.

All claims for benefits, an award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit and various treatment plans outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support claims of chronic pain or psychological injury warranting removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he maintained or increased his pre-accident activities, including working as an Uber driver.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to a physiotherapy treatment plan for a vertigo assessment and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The evidence indicated that the applicant's vertigo symptoms were resolved or managed with medication, and the chronic pain diagnosis was not corroborated by the clinical notes and records of her treating physicians.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for an award for unreasonable delay and interest, finding the insurer's conduct was reasonable.

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 Tribunal found that the applicant was barred from disputing one treatment plan because he missed the two-year limitation period and the respondent's denial notice was valid.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal held that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were predominantly minor, keeping him within the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant returned to work and failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The insurer denied a treatment plan, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal more than two years later.

The Tribunal found that the insurer's denial letter was clear and unequivocal, triggering the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the LAT Act, barring the applicant from proceeding on that treatment plan.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), as she failed to prove chronic pain with functional impairment.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to the disputed treatment plan or interest.

The applicant, who suffered a catastrophic impairment including a leg amputation in a motor vehicle accident, sought $607,445 for home modifications to his mother's residence.

The insurer denied the benefit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the mother's residence did not qualify as the applicant's "existing home" under s. 16 of the Schedule, as evidence showed he lived with his stepfather prior to the accident.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held there is no authority under the Schedule to redirect home modification funds into a trust for a future home purchase.

The Tribunal also dismissed the insurer's preliminary motion to dismiss the application for the applicant's failure to attend an Examination Under Oath, noting the Schedule does not prescribe dismissal as a penalty for such non-compliance.

The claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after falling on a TTC bus due to sudden acceleration.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the incident did not involve a collision as required by s. 268(1.1) of the Insurance Act for public transit vehicles.

The Tribunal reviewed video evidence and found the bus did not collide with any object, including a manhole cover as alleged by the applicant.

The application was dismissed as the applicant was barred from receiving benefits under the public transit exception.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criteria 6, 7, and 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's key expert witness, who failed to attend the hearing for cross-examination, citing procedural fairness.

Relying on surveillance evidence that contradicted the applicant's claims of severe impairment and social isolation, the Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

Consequently, claims for medication expenses beyond the non-catastrophic limit, a special award, and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was catastrophically injured when the ATV she was driving collided with a tree on private property.

The respondent denied statutory accident benefits, arguing the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' because the ATV was not required to be insured while on the owner's property.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that because the ATV was regularly driven along and across public municipal roadways to access different parts of the property, it was required to be insured under the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

Consequently, the ATV met the enlarged statutory definition of an 'automobile', and the incident qualified as an 'accident' under the Schedule.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7, reaching a 57% whole-person impairment rating.

The Tribunal also found the applicant met the test for post-104 income replacement benefits due to a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, but denied payment because the applicant failed to file income tax returns as required by section 4(5) of the Schedule.

Finally, the Tribunal determined the applicant was entitled to attendant care benefits of $889.21 per month, but denied payment because the expenses were not incurred.

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 applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence insufficient to establish functional impairment from chronic pain or a diagnosable psychological injury, preferring the respondent's s. 44 assessments.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claims for an award were dismissed.