Tyler Moore

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 matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant's representative withdrew prior to the hearing, and the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to the benefits and removal from the MIG, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the respondent on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The matter proceeded to a written hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet their onus to demonstrate entitlement to removal from the MIG or to the disputed medical benefits.

The application was dismissed.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence, despite receiving notice of the hearing and a reminder from the Tribunal.

Pursuant to section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement and provided no evidence, the application was dismissed.

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

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to the benefits and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet this burden.

The application was dismissed.

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

After the applicant's representative withdrew, the applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence for the scheduled written hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal proceeded with the hearing pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to prove entitlement to the claimed benefits, removal from the Minor Injury Guideline, or an award.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The matter was scheduled for a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence by the deadline and did not properly request an adjournment.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to the disputed benefits and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline, the Tribunal dismissed the application pursuant to section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to the claimed benefits and removal from the MIG, the Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that their injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but neither party filed submissions or evidence.

The Tribunal proceeded in the absence of submissions pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the applicant bore the onus of proof and failed to file any evidence, the Tribunal found the applicant did not meet their evidentiary burden.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and seeking a chronic pain assessment.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

Consequently, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found to remain within the MIG and not entitled to the disputed medical benefit, award, or interest.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant's representative withdrew prior to the hearing, and the applicant failed to file any written submissions or request an adjournment.

The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing under s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the applicant filed no evidence, he failed to meet his burden of proof.

The application was dismissed.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing under s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the applicant bore the onus of proof and provided no evidence, the Tribunal found the applicant remained within the Minor Injury Guideline and dismissed the claims for a chronic pain assessment, an award, and interest.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit, interest, and an award following a motor vehicle accident.

The matter was scheduled for a written hearing.

The applicant's representative withdrew, and the applicant subsequently failed to file any submissions or respond to Tribunal communications.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement and provided no evidence or submissions, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit, an award for unreasonable delay, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

After the applicant's representative withdrew, the applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence.

The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing in the applicant's absence pursuant to s. 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Finding that the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and seeking a non-earner benefit and various medical benefits.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet his evidentiary burden to demonstrate entitlement to the disputed benefits or removal from the Minor Injury Guideline.

The application was dismissed.

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

The matter proceeded to a written hearing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence by the deadline and did not respond to the Tribunal's follow-up communications.

As the applicant bore the onus of proving entitlement to the disputed benefits, the Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet this burden.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

Pursuant to section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet his evidentiary burden to demonstrate entitlement to removal from the Minor Injury Guideline or to the disputed medical benefits.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for resolution of a dispute regarding statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant sought removal from the Minor Injury Guideline, non-earner benefits, medical benefits, an award, and interest.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but neither party filed submissions.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden to demonstrate entitlement to the benefits sought.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant and respondent both requested reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that dismissed the application for failing to file submissions.

The parties argued that they had reached a settlement pending court approval and had informed the Tribunal via email, believing no decision would be made.

The Vice-Chair found that there was a misunderstanding of fact based on the email correspondence.

The reconsideration was granted on consent, the previous decision was cancelled, and the file was closed without prejudice pending the outcome of the court approval process.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically $13,786.00 for a chiropractic assessment, an award, and interest.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but neither party filed submissions.

The Tribunal found that the chiropractic assessment had already been approved and paid by the respondent.

As the applicant failed to file any evidence or submissions to demonstrate entitlement to an award or interest, the application was dismissed.

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

The matter was scheduled for a written hearing, but neither party filed submissions.

The applicant advised the Tribunal that a settlement had been reached and was pending court approval.

As a determination on the merits was no longer required, the Tribunal directed the parties to notify it if the settlement is not approved and closed the file without prejudice.