Andrea Seecharan

The appellants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order evicting them for nonpayment of rent.

They argued the Board denied them procedural fairness by deciding service issues before hearing arguments on the nature of the tenancy, and that the Board misinterpreted section 202(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 in finding they were joint tenants.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that determining service first was procedurally fair and that the appellants' statutory interpretation arguments were actually unappealable disagreements with the Board's factual findings.

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

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the funding limits had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that pre-existing psychological and physical conditions, as well as chronic pain, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the pre-existing conditions prevented maximal medical recovery within the MIG limits, noting the applicant's functionality improved post-accident and diagnostic tests showed no significant injuries.

The application was dismissed, and claims for treatment plans, interest, and a special award were denied.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for a chronic pain assessment and a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing depression and sports injuries, as well as accident-related psychological impairments and chronic pain syndrome, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to provide compelling medical evidence that his pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG limits.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, concluding the applicant did not suffer a psychological injury or meet the criteria for chronic pain syndrome.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for two treatment plans for chiropractic services and massage therapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the contemporaneous section 44 assessment of the respondent's medical examiner, which found no evidence of impairment.

The application 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 he should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain and orthopedic impairments, specifically degenerative disc disease and foraminal stenosis.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for chronic pain under the AMA Guides, noting his reports of minimal pain to his family doctors and lack of functional impairment.

The Tribunal also found no medical evidence linking the degenerative changes on his MRI to the accident.

As the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.

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

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries, specifically fragmentation of the lateral distal tibia, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal granted the claim for an orthopaedic assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary based on objective evidence of physical complaints and a pre-existing knee injury.

However, claims for physiotherapy were dismissed due to a lack of evidentiary submissions, and a psychological assessment was denied after the applicant's psychological report was excluded for late production.

Interest was awarded on the approved orthopaedic assessment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical, rehabilitation, and income replacement benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and terminated her income replacement benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her injuries warranted removal from the MIG on the basis of chronic pain or psychological impairment.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform her pre-accident employment or a complete inability to engage in any employment, dismissing her claim for income replacement benefits.