Alexander Chekina

The applicant, a special needs student, was assaulted by another student while riding a school bus and subsequently suffered a stroke.

She applied for statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the incident was not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The Tribunal found that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The assault was an intervening act that broke the chain of causation, and the use or operation of the school bus was not the direct cause of the applicant's injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that barred her from proceeding to a hearing for an income replacement benefit due to the expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The applicant argued the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact regarding the validity of the insurer's denial and ongoing duty to adjust the claim.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness and that the original decision correctly applied the law regarding the limitation period trigger and the test to extend it.

The appellants appealed from a summary judgment dismissing their claim for non-vested stock options under a consulting agreement.

The motion judge found the agreement was not a fixed term contract and that entitlement to unvested options was contingent on the appellants remaining engaged with the respondents on each vesting date.

The appellants raised a new argument on appeal regarding breach of the duty of good faith, which was not advanced below.

The appellants also challenged the costs award.

The Tribunal initiated a review of its initial and reconsideration decisions under Rule 18.5 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Rules, 2023.

The review focused on whether the Tribunal committed a material breach of procedural fairness by relying on the respondent's expert reports when the respondent did not call those experts for cross-examination.

The Vice-Chair found that admitting and relying upon the untested expert evidence, which was pivotal in denying the applicant's claim of catastrophic impairment, constituted a material breach of procedural fairness.

The initial and reconsideration decisions were cancelled in part, and a rehearing was ordered for the determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 and the claim for attendant care benefits.

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

The insurer paid IRBs initially but ceased payments after the applicant returned to work, issuing a notice of stoppage.

Over three years later, the applicant applied to the Tribunal to dispute the denial.

The Tribunal found the insurer's notice was valid under the Smith criteria, triggering the two-year limitation period.

Applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period, finding no bona fide intention to appeal in time, significant delay, prejudice to the insurer, and lack of merit.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The plaintiff, Xuan Wu, underwent a Brazilian Butt Lift at the Toronto Cosmetic Surgery Institute and subsequently developed a significant infection.

She sued Dr. Martin Jugenburg and his clinic, alleging that she did not provide informed consent because she was not made aware of the risk of infection.

The court found that informed consent was properly obtained through a series of consultations and written materials, and that the process met the legal standard.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he did not sustain a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal breached procedural fairness and made errors of law by excluding his written submissions, relying on the respondent's section 44 assessment reports without the assessors testifying, and ignoring his expert evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that case law is not new evidence under Rule 18.2(c), the exclusion of written submissions in a videoconference hearing was proper, the applicant had the opportunity to summons the section 44 assessors but failed to do so, and the Tribunal is not required to comment on every piece of evidence in its decision.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criteria 7 (55% whole person impairment) and Criteria 8 (marked impairment in three of four domains).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's whole person impairment was 47%, falling short of the 55% threshold, and that he did not suffer marked impairment in social functioning.

The Tribunal denied most of the disputed treatment and assessment plans, finding them not reasonable and necessary, but approved a $2,665.50 chronic pain assessment.

Claims for attendant care benefits, an award for unreasonable delay, and costs were dismissed.