Alfred Wing Fai Cheng

The minor applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic treatment.

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 was largely exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving her injuries, including alleged chronic back pain, fell outside the MIG.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were deemed not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied several treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant sought removal from the MIG based on psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence linking his psychological complaints or ongoing back pain to the accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were minor and confined him to the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans, interest, an award for unreasonable delay, and costs were all denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, a concussion, and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's section 44 medical reports over the applicant's subjective reporting and family doctor records.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant failed to provide a comparison of pre- and post-accident activities as required by Heath, and failed to comply with section 33 requests for an updated disability certificate.

As the applicant was subject to the MIG and no benefits were overdue, the claims for treatment plans, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident where a vehicle crashed into her workplace lunchroom.

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove she suffered from chronic pain or a psychological condition that would warrant removal from the MIG, noting significant inconsistencies in her self-reporting, particularly her failure to disclose her participation in a physically demanding, full-time Personal Support Worker program shortly after the accident.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

However, the adjudicator awarded an Income Replacement Benefit for a closed period from the date the disability certificate was submitted until the date the applicant's family doctor cleared her to participate in the PSW program.

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

The insurer denied a treatment plan for chiropractic services 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 that a pre-existing ACL tear warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence from a treating practitioner that his pre-existing condition would prevent him from achieving maximum medical recovery within the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the claim for chiropractic services and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits and several treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and a chronic pain assessment.

The adjudicator dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator preferred the respondent's section 44 assessments over the applicant's evidence, finding the applicant's occupational therapy report to be of limited evidentiary value due to inconsistencies with clinical notes and records.

Furthermore, the applicant failed to meet her evidentiary burden for the treatment plans by not providing copies of the disputed OCF-18s or specific submissions addressing the goals and costs of the proposed treatments.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision finding that her accident-related injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and were subject to the $3,500 funding limit.

She argued the adjudicator erred in assessing her pre-existing medical conditions, ongoing pain, and psychological injuries.

The Tribunal found no error of law or fact, noting insufficient evidence that her pre-existing conditions prolonged her recovery or that she suffered from chronic pain removing her from the MIG.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions, psychological injuries, and ongoing pain removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing conditions did not preclude recovery within the funding limit, preferred the respondent's psychological assessment finding no psychological impairment, and concluded there was no evidence of a chronic pain condition.

The Tribunal held that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and dismissed the claims for medical benefits and interest.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed attendant care, housekeeping, and caregiver benefits from her insurer under a transitional policy.

The central legal issue was whether the new 'incurred' definition in the 2010 Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, which requires non-professional service providers to demonstrate an economic loss, applied to her claims.

The arbitrator held that the applicant's rights vested on the date of the accident, meaning the 2010 Schedule's definition of 'incurred' applied.

Because the applicant's family members could not demonstrate a quantifiable economic loss, the claims for attendant care and caregiver benefits were denied.

However, the applicant was awarded partial housekeeping benefits for services provided by professional cleaners during the period she was substantially disabled from performing those tasks.

The court determined costs arising from four similar insurance motions brought by separate defendants in related actions.

The plaintiffs sought partial indemnity costs of $36,500.

The court found that a deduction was required because some counsel time related to unargued Charter applications rather than the motions themselves.

Applying the principles from Hunt v. TD Securities Inc., the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and instead reduced the requested amount by $8,000.

The plaintiffs were awarded $28,500 plus HST, payable equally among the defendants.

The plaintiffs, injured in motor vehicle accidents, applied for mediation through the Financial Services Commission of Ontario regarding entitlement to statutory accident benefits.

Mediation was not scheduled within 60 days of filing their applications, and the regulator refused to issue reports declaring mediation had failed, asserting the 60‑day period began only once a mediator was appointed.

The plaintiffs commenced court actions and the insurers moved to strike the claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The court held that Rule 19 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code imposes a mandatory requirement that mediation be concluded within 60 days of filing the mediation application.

Because that period had expired, mediation was deemed to have failed and the plaintiffs were not required to obtain a failed mediation report or pursue internal appeals or judicial review before commencing their actions.