Alanna Pink

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2011 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed entitlement to assistive devices (including an iPhone and Apple Watch, and incontinence supplies), prescription medication, mileage expenses, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to incontinence supplies and one claim for mileage expenses, as they were reasonable and necessary.

The claims for the iPhone, Apple Watch, prescription medication, and remaining mileage expenses were dismissed for lack of supporting evidence.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was also dismissed, but interest was awarded on the outstanding amounts.

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing degenerative disc disease and chronic pain.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery within the MIG.

Furthermore, applying the AMA Guides, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the criteria for chronic pain with functional impairment, noting he continued to work and exercise.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plan was not considered as the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit.

The applicant sought payment for psychological and physiotherapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The claim for psychological services was denied as the applicant provided no evidence or submissions.

The claim for physiotherapy was denied because the adjudicator accepted the respondent's medical evidence that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and resumed pre-accident sporting activities, finding the proposed treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

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 the applicant suffered from chronic pain and a T1-T2 herniated disc, warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the respondent failed to provide compliant denial notices under s. 38(8) of the Schedule for two treatment plans, triggering mandatory payment under s. 38(11).

The treatment plan for a chronic pain assessment was deemed reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, an attendant care assessment, and chiropractic services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims for the non-earner benefit and the attendant care assessment, finding the applicant failed to provide sufficient medical evidence or a detailed comparison of pre- and post-accident activities to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the Tribunal granted the treatment plans for chiropractic services, concluding that the medical evidence supported the necessity of physical therapy for the applicant's accident-exacerbated bilateral shoulder and knee impairments.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits, a physiotherapy treatment plan, interest, and an award following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove entitlement to the claimed quantum of $400 per week for income replacement benefits, noting the respondent had already paid past benefits and was paying an ongoing amount.

The claim for the physiotherapy treatment plan was dismissed as the respondent had already approved it.

The claims for interest and an award were also dismissed as no benefits were overdue and the applicant failed to address the award claim in submissions.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic, physiotherapy, and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found the chiropractic and physiotherapy treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's ongoing accident-related pain, supported by clinical notes and records.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for a psychological assessment, finding insufficient medical evidence of an accident-related psychological impairment.

The applicant was awarded the physical treatment plans plus interest.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found she was not involved in an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the incident occurred in two phases and the Tribunal made an error of fact regarding the size of rocks thrown at her.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-litigate her initial arguments and failed to show how the characterization of the rocks impacted the overall conclusions.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to treatment plans for physiotherapy, a functional abilities evaluation, an occupational therapy assessment, and an optometrist assessment, as the medical evidence supported ongoing physical and functional limitations.

The Tribunal denied the claim for provider travel time related to social rehabilitation counselling due to lack of evidence.

The applicant was awarded interest on the overdue benefits, but the claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not found to be unreasonable.

The applicant insurer sought repayment of income replacement benefits paid to the respondent, alleging an overpayment due to an error in calculation.

The initial request for repayment of $7,130.20 was made within the 12-month statutory timeframe under s. 52 of the Schedule.

However, a subsequent request for a revised overpayment amount of $2,228.34 was made outside the 12-month period.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence or submissions regarding the quantum of the alleged overpayment for the period in dispute.

The application for repayment and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits (NEBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing she met the test for NEBs and that the respondent's denial letter did not comply with section 36 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, including an OCF-3 and clinical notes, lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life under the Heath test.

The Tribunal also held that the respondent's denial letter sufficiently addressed the applicant's medical condition and complied with section 36(4).

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being assaulted by a stranger while stopped at a red light on a motorcycle.

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation test, finding that while sitting on a motorcycle at a red light meets the purpose test, the assault was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation.

The Tribunal concluded that the use or operation of the vehicle was not the direct cause of the applicant's impairments, and dismissed the application.

The Plaintiffs moved to strike the statement of defence due to the Defendant's failure to serve a sworn affidavit of documents and attend examination for discovery.

Alternatively, they sought an order compelling compliance.

The Defendant cross-moved to compel the injured Plaintiff, Zbigniew Antczak, to attend examination for discovery, arguing his injuries did not prevent it.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion to strike, finding the Defendant had cured the affidavit default and had a reasonable explanation for delaying discovery (pending Crown Brief from Highway Traffic Act charges).

The court also dismissed the Defendant's cross-motion, ruling that Zbigniew Antczak, due to severe traumatic brain injury and court-appointed guardianship, was not competent to give evidence at discovery.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy services following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's insurer's examination assessors, who concluded that further facility-based physical treatment was unlikely to provide any additional therapeutic benefit for the applicant's left elbow injury and chronic pain.

As no benefits were payable, claims for interest and a section 10 award were also dismissed.

The self-represented applicants brought a motion for an extension of time to appeal a reconsideration decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal regarding accident benefits.

The respondent opposed the motion, arguing the applicants had a history of vexatious litigation and the appeal was devoid of merit.

The court granted the extension, finding the 12-day delay was not lengthy, the applicants had a bona fide intention to appeal, and the proposed ground of reasonable apprehension of bias was not utterly devoid of merit.

The extension was granted subject to strict terms, including case management, to address the respondent's concerns about the applicants' litigation conduct.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for various treatment plans and assessments.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to demonstrate that her physical, psychological, or pre-existing conditions warranted removal from the MIG.

As the applicant remained within the MIG limit, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and claims for interest and an award were dismissed.