Bianca F. Hosseini

The Applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was barred from disputing several treatment plans because she failed to apply within the two-year limitation period, noting the insurer's denials were compliant with the requirements in Smith v. Co-operators.

For the remaining treatment plans, the Tribunal dismissed the claims, finding the Applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence demonstrating that the proposed multidisciplinary, neurological, physiotherapy, and psychological treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs) and interest.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant could maintain employment.

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered a concussion and mild traumatic brain injury, leading to significant physical and psychological impairments.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts over the respondent's, the Tribunal concluded the applicant demonstrated a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The applicant was awarded IRBs of $168.59 per week from August 24, 2023, to date, plus interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming severe physical and psychological impairments.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate his injuries, including alleged psychological impairments and concussion symptoms, fell outside the MIG.

The tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, as the applicant provided no evidence of a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

All claims for medical benefits, transportation expenses, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including non-earner benefits, various treatment plans, and attendant care benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof for the non-earner benefits, as she did not provide sufficient evidence comparing her pre- and post-accident activities.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the disputed treatment plans and attendant care benefits due to a lack of supporting evidence and submissions.

The respondent conceded entitlement to one psychotherapy treatment plan.

The claim for an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664 was dismissed.

A secured creditor applied for judgment against individual guarantors following the borrower corporation’s receivership.

The respondents had executed personal guarantees securing corporate indebtedness totaling $140,000.

Each guarantor attempted to shift responsibility to the other and argued the creditor should first exhaust recovery against the corporation.

The court held the guarantees expressly permitted the creditor to proceed directly against the guarantors without exhausting recourse against the principal debtor.

Finding no tenable defence, the court granted judgment against both guarantors for the guaranteed amounts plus interest and costs.