Braden Adsett

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

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

As a preliminary issue, the respondent argued the application was barred by res judicata because a previous Tribunal decision had already determined the applicant was subject to the MIG.

The adjudicator found res judicata did not apply because the previous decision addressed whether the applicant had a pre-existing condition, whereas the current application argued for removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and psychological impairment.

On the substantive issues, the adjudicator found the applicant's chronic neck pain and headaches pre-dated the accident and her psychological complaints were related to this pre-existing pain.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor, and she was not entitled to the disputed treatment plan or an award.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she was not removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) based on a pre-existing condition.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact, and sought to introduce new medical evidence.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding no legal errors in the original analysis of the medical evidence and concluding that the new evidence did not meet the strict test for reconsideration under Rule 18.2.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the respondent insurer, who argued her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing her pre-existing neck and back pain and headaches precluded her recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence that her pre-existing conditions precluded recovery within the MIG.

Consequently, the applicant remained subject to the MIG limit, and her claims for a chiropractic treatment plan, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The Plaintiffs moved to strike the statement of defence due to the Defendant's failure to serve a sworn affidavit of documents and attend examination for discovery.

Alternatively, they sought an order compelling compliance.

The Defendant cross-moved to compel the injured Plaintiff, Zbigniew Antczak, to attend examination for discovery, arguing his injuries did not prevent it.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion to strike, finding the Defendant had cured the affidavit default and had a reasonable explanation for delaying discovery (pending Crown Brief from Highway Traffic Act charges).

The court also dismissed the Defendant's cross-motion, ruling that Zbigniew Antczak, due to severe traumatic brain injury and court-appointed guardianship, was not competent to give evidence at discovery.

Omar Bataineh was found guilty after trial of failing to stop after an accident resulting in death.

The Crown sought 12-18 months jail, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court found that Bataineh was aware he struck the victim, stopped briefly away from the scene, and then deliberately drove past the scene again without stopping.

Despite his good character and stated remorse, the court noted a lack of insight into his behaviour, as he described himself as a victim.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced Bataineh to 12 months in custody, a three-year driving prohibition, and one year of probation.