Alexander Hartwig

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

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

The applicant argued she suffered from psychological impairments and chronic pain that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's psychologist over the applicant's psychologist, finding the applicant did not suffer from a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of chronic pain caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed as the injuries fell within the MIG.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for non-earner benefits and medical benefits.

The respondent initially denied or ignored the claims but paid them after the applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The parties resolved the substantive benefits at a case conference, leaving only the issue of a special award for unreasonable delay.

The respondent argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to grant a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 because no benefits were owing "at the time of the award." The Tribunal rejected this literal interpretation, finding it retained jurisdiction and that allowing an insurer to avoid a special award by paying late would defeat the consumer protection purpose of the legislation.

The Tribunal found the respondent unreasonably delayed payments, ignored medical evidence, and failed to respond to correspondence.

Applying the Persofsky factors, the Tribunal awarded a special award of $5,896.83, representing 40% of the delayed benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits five and a half years after a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the claims and argued the application was time-barred.

The Tribunal held the applicant was not barred from proceeding because the insurer failed to advise her that she could be permanently disentitled if she did not provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal also found the insurer failed to provide notice within 10 days that it was relying on the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), meaning it could not rely on the MIG limit and had to pay for physiotherapy incurred during the default period.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for psychological services and prescription medication, finding the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary or temporally connected to the accident.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on February 15, 2011.

The applicant filed an application with the Licence Appeal Tribunal over six years later.

The applicant argued the limitation period had not run because the respondent failed to request a new disability certificate prior to scheduling assessments, and because the denial was not clear and unequivocal.

The Tribunal found that the denial was clear and unequivocal, and that the failure to request a new disability certificate did not warrant extending the limitation period.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

The appellant sought appeal expenses of approximately $4,400 after the respondent conceded the appeal following a change in case law.

The respondent argued it should not be liable for expenses because it conceded the appeal once the new decision was released.

The Director's Delegate found the appellant was entitled to expenses based on her success, noting the respondent's actions were analogous to a withdrawal request which does not guarantee no expenses will be awarded.

The expenses were fixed at $3,750.00, slightly reduced from the claimed amount for reasonableness.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit of $2,920.62 for physical therapy.

The respondent denied the treatment plan.

At the hearing, the applicant relied on the evidence of his occupational therapist, who testified about his anxiety and need for community reintegration.

The respondent relied on an orthopaedic surgeon who found the applicant's physical injuries had healed and required no further facility-based treatment.

The adjudicator dismissed the application, finding that the treatment plan was specifically for physical therapy, and the applicant failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary given the lack of supporting physical evidence.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including an income replacement benefit and several medical benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to an income replacement benefit because he was substantially able to perform essential tasks of his pre-accident employment, such as driving and carrying window samples.

The Tribunal approved two treatment plans for chiropractic services, finding them reasonable and necessary for pain management, and awarded interest on those amounts.

The claims for psychological services, an orthopaedic assessment, and an attendant care assessment were dismissed for lack of evidence demonstrating they were reasonable and necessary.

The respondent's request for costs due to the applicant's procedural non-compliance was denied.

The plaintiff brought a motion in writing under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure for approval of a proposed settlement on behalf of a minor injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The court found the evidentiary record insufficient to determine whether the settlement was in the minor's best interest, noting missing information regarding liability, the minor's medical prognosis, the breakdown of the settlement amount, and legal fees.

The court directed the moving party to provide additional materials within 60 days and ordered the materials to be served on the Children's Lawyer for a report and recommendations.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical and rehabilitation benefits, as well as the cost of a vocational assessment, from her auto insurer.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the injuries were uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and not related to the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objective medical evidence, including CT and MRI scans, established that the applicant suffered from disc herniation and radiculopathy caused by the accident.

The Tribunal concluded that the requested physiotherapy, chiropractic, psychological services, and vocational assessment were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was awarded the claimed benefits with interest, and no costs were awarded to either party.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a 2005 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant's representative, an unlicensed agent previously found by the Law Society to lack good character, appeared at the hearing without instructions from the applicant, who had moved to Ethiopia and ceased participating.

The arbitrator excluded the representative for lacking competence and instructions.

The application was dismissed as an abuse of process due to the applicant's prolonged non-participation and failure to comply with production orders.

The representative was ordered to personally pay $1,000 in expenses to the insurer for needlessly prolonging the proceeding.

The applicant, a pedestrian struck by a motor vehicle, sought payment for a physiotherapy treatment plan under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan, arguing the applicant had returned to a state of functional mobility.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary to achieve the goals of increasing strength, reducing pain, and increasing range of motion.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the balance of the treatment plan with interest, and declined to award costs to either party.