Andrea Lim

The applicant, a minor represented by his parent, requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claim for attendant care benefits.

The applicant argued that his former counsel withdrew several issues without informed consent and sought to introduce new evidence regarding his mother's economic loss.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no breach of procedural fairness as it was entitled to rely on the former counsel's statements as an officer of the court.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that the new evidence regarding economic loss pertained to a different time period and would not likely have affected the original decision.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an alleged incident in 2007.

The respondent denied the benefits and sought repayment of $67,621.07, alleging willful misrepresentation.

A preliminary issue hearing was scheduled in writing.

The applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence despite receiving notice.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet the evidentiary burden to demonstrate involvement in an accident.

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

The parties participated in a case conference and subsequently advised the Tribunal that the disputed issues had been resolved.

The Tribunal ordered the file closed.

The Applicant applied for statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Insurer denied claims for a non-earner benefit and medical benefits.

The Applicant failed to attend the arbitration hearing.

As the Applicant bore the burden of proof and presented no evidence, her claims were dismissed.

The Insurer was awarded its expenses of the arbitration fixed at $2,846.93 due to the Applicant's conduct prolonging the proceeding.

The applicants sought accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents.

The insurer scheduled examinations under section 44 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule, but the applicants failed to attend, insisting on the presence of a Ministry of the Attorney General accredited interpreter.

The arbitrator held that there is no requirement for a MAG accredited interpreter, only a competent and independent one.

Because the applicants failed to attend the required examinations, they were precluded by section 55.2 of the Schedule from mediating and arbitrating their claims.