Alexander L. 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 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.