Bahman Azimi

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

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving chronic pain, as he did not meet the AMA Guides criteria and the respondent's medical examination was preferred.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of a psychological impairment.

The applicant was held to remain within the MIG and was entitled only to the remaining balance of the $3,500 limit, plus interest on any overdue payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including treatment plans for physiotherapy, chiropractic, psychological, and optometric services, as well as prescription expenses.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to the psychological services and a portion of the prescription expenses, as the medical evidence supported a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and chronic pain related to the accident.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, chiropractic, and optometric services, preferring the respondent's insurer examinations which found these treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's claim for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 was dismissed, as the respondent's reliance on its medical experts was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits for chiropractic treatment.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered predominantly minor injuries and failed to provide compelling medical evidence to warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for IRBs, finding no evidence of a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of employment, and concluded the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit of $2,902.55 for physiotherapy, which the respondent insurer denied.

The applicant argued the accident aggravated pre-existing conditions, while the respondent contended the applicant's current complaints were caused by a subsequent cancer diagnosis and spinal surgery.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary as a result of the accident, noting the medical evidence linked his severe back and leg pain to his cancer rather than the collision.

The application for benefits, interest, and an award was dismissed.

The plaintiff rented his high-performance vehicle to the defendant for a weekend.

The vehicle suffered catastrophic engine failure while in the defendant's possession.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract, alleging the defendant over-revved the engine and drove beyond legal limits, evidenced by a depleted methanol tank.

The court found the defendant breached the agreement to use utmost care and return the vehicle in substantially the same condition.

The plaintiff was awarded $53,535.30 in damages for the engine replacement.

Claims for punitive damages, the defendant's counterclaim for the rental fee, and a third-party claim were dismissed.