Ariane Wiseman

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

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from claiming a non-earner benefit because she ought reasonably to have known her vehicle was uninsured at the time of the accident.

Claims for attendant care benefits and most treatment plans were denied, as medical and surveillance evidence demonstrated her injuries had healed and her presentation was exaggerated.

The Tribunal ordered the applicant to repay $3,000 in attendant care benefits, finding she wilfully misrepresented the extent of services received from personal support workers.

The applicant was awarded $80 for the outstanding balance of an assistive devices treatment plan.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to four treatment plans for medical devices, a physiatry assessment, and massage and chiropractic treatments.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits based on insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant demonstrated the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, supported by consistent medical evidence including MRI results showing a rotator cuff tear.

The Tribunal also found the insurer failed to provide sufficient medical reasons for denying the medical devices plan under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The applicant was awarded the treatment plans and interest, but the claim for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed as the insurer's conduct amounted to a difference of medical opinion rather than unreasonable behaviour.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, having previously been found to suffer from chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered whether several treatment plans for physiotherapy, physical rehabilitation, psychological services, and assistive devices were reasonable and necessary under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that further facility-based treatment, including physiotherapy, physical rehabilitation, acupuncture, and a back support, were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's chronic pain and functionality.

The Tribunal also approved the treatment plan for psychological services, finding a causal link between the applicant's chronic pain and psychological symptoms.

Claims for an orthopaedic mattress, an elbow brace, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant sought payment for a chiropractic treatment plan in the amount of $2,574.53 following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found the treatment plan to be reasonable and necessary based on the applicant's consistent reporting of pain and positive responses to previous treatment, preferring the treating medical documentation over the insurer's section 44 assessor.

The applicant's claim for a special award under section 10 of O. Reg 664 was dismissed, as the insurer's conduct was not found to be excessive or imprudent.

The respondent's request for costs, based on allegations that the applicant submitted a backdated Disability Certificate, was also dismissed because the applicant reasonably withdrew the issue prior to the hearing without causing prejudice.

The plaintiff brought an action for professional negligence, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty against the defendants, who acted as her paralegal consultants following two motor vehicle accidents in 2001.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants failed to preserve the limitation periods for her accident benefits and tort claims.

The court found that the defendants were retained for the first accident but not the second.

Although the defendants breached the standard of care by failing to file a statement of claim and inform the plaintiff of limitation issues for the first accident, the court dismissed the action.

The court held that the plaintiff's claims against the defendants were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as she knew or ought to have known of the potential claim more than two years before commencing the action.

Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's injuries from the first accident did not meet the permanent serious impairment threshold under the Insurance Act.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought non-earner benefits (NEBs) and attendant care benefits (ACBs) from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied the benefits and raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with her application for failing to appeal within the two-year limitation period.

The Tribunal found that the ACB claim was not properly before it because the applicant had never submitted an Assessment of Attendant Care Needs (Form-1), meaning no valid denial could have been made.

Regarding the NEB claim, the Tribunal found the insurer's denial was clear and unequivocal, triggering the limitation period.

However, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the limitation period, noting the applicant's bona fide intention to appeal, the negligible six-business-day delay, the lack of prejudice to the insurer, and the potential merit of the claim.

The applicant was permitted to proceed with her NEB claim.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for two chiropractic treatment plans for chronic shoulder pain.

The respondent insurer denied the plans based on an insurer's examination report.

The Tribunal found the treatment plans reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating physicians and chronic pain program over the insurer's assessor.

The Tribunal also awarded a 10% special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding the respondent unreasonably withheld benefits by failing to adjust the claim when presented with updated medical records.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing back pain was exacerbated by the accident, resulting in chronic pain that caused functional impairment, thereby warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved one physiotherapy treatment plan for $1,197.00 as reasonable and necessary, but denied two subsequent plans due to a lack of evidence justifying their necessity.

The applicant's request for a special award under s. 10 was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The appellant appealed a Master's order refusing to set aside a Registrar's administrative dismissal of his civil action under Rule 48.14(1).

The Divisional Court found that the Master erred in law and made palpable and overriding errors of fact by incorrectly applying the test for setting aside an administrative dismissal.

Specifically, the Master failed to consider all factors, such as promptness and prejudice, and ignored certified information provided by counsel in a Simplified Procedure motion form.

The appeal was allowed, the Master's order was set aside, and the action was ordered to be set down for trial.