Amelio Thé

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

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that she did not meet the test for income replacement benefits (IRB).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's injuries, which included chronic pain syndrome and a partial rotator cuff tear, took her outside the MIG.

The adjudicator approved all but one of the disputed treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary to address her chronic pain and functional limitations.

The adjudicator also found the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a packing finisher, entitling her to IRBs.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments, but a claim for a special award under Regulation 664 was denied.

The defendant sought summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action, arguing it was statutorily barred by limitation periods and that the plaintiff failed to comply with policy timelines for notice and proof of claim.

The plaintiff opposed, asserting the action was timely based on discoverability and seeking relief from forfeiture for any non-compliance.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding the evidentiary record insufficient to make definitive factual determinations regarding the date of discoverability of the disability benefits or whether relief from forfeiture should be granted.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the defendant to raise limitation period arguments at trial.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a $2,200 chronic pain assessment.

The insurer denied the benefit, arguing the applicant's ongoing pain was related to her pre-existing Crohn's disease rather than the accident.

The Tribunal found the assessment was reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant had no history of such pain prior to the accident and had consistently sought treatment for over a year.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the cost of the assessment plus interest.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury action, arguing it was statute-barred due to the commencement of a second action outside the presumptive limitation period.

The plaintiff resisted and brought a cross-motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to plead discoverability.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the discoverability of threshold injuries under the Insurance Act was a genuine issue for trial, and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend her pleading.

The court found the prior unserved action irrelevant to the limitation period analysis of the served action.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging workplace sexual harassment and assault, while concurrently pursuing a civil action and a WSIB/WSIAT claim based on the same allegations.

The applicant requested that the Tribunal defer its proceedings pending the resolution of the other matters.

The respondents opposed the deferral, arguing the multiplicity of proceedings was an abuse of process.

The Tribunal granted the deferral, finding significant overlap in the factual and legal issues and noting that the civil action was further advanced and the WSIAT's decision on the right to sue would inform the appropriate forum.