Brenden William Roy Carruthers

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal decision reinstating the respondent's Income Replacement Benefits.

The benefits had been suspended after the respondent failed to provide requested medical records.

The Tribunal found the respondent had a 'reasonable explanation' for the delay under s. 33(8)(b) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator applied the correct legal test for 'reasonable explanation' by considering both objective and subjective factors, and provided adequate reasons for the decision.

This personal injury action concerned a slip and fall on an icy condominium roadway.

The plaintiff sued the condominium corporation and its snow removal contractor for negligence.

The contractor was deemed an occupier under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

The central issue was whether the contractor applied road salt in a sufficiently timely manner to prevent dangerous icy conditions.

The court found the contractor negligent for failing to apply road salt concurrently with or immediately after plowing, which led to the formation of a hazardous icy surface.

The contractor's operational system, which relied on the owner personally handling all salting for numerous properties, was identified as problematic and overstretched.

The court dismissed the defendants' claim of contributory negligence against the plaintiff and found the defendants liable for the plaintiff's injuries.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying her non-earner benefits due to her failure to submit a completed OCF-3 disability certificate.

She argued the Tribunal violated procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact in interpreting section 36 of the Schedule and weighing evidence.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding no errors of law, fact, or procedural fairness, and noted that dissatisfaction with the result or a desire to re-argue the case are not valid grounds for reconsideration.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was barred from claiming non-earner benefits because she failed to submit a completed disability certificate supporting her claim, as required by s. 36(2) of the Schedule.

Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish that she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting that her pre-accident medical records contradicted her testimony regarding her pre-accident activity levels.

The claim for a psychological pre-screening assessment was also dismissed as not reasonable and necessary, and no award or costs were granted.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The insurer deducted the applicant's Employment Insurance (EI) sickness benefits from the IRB, arguing they constituted 'gross employment income' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the Schedule contains conflicting provisions regarding EI benefits but concluded that EI sickness benefits, unlike other EI benefits, are received in respect of an impairment and are specifically excluded from deduction under section 47(3).

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the improperly deducted amount of $5,901.00 plus interest.

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

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant was statute-barred for failing to submit a 'completed' OCF-3 Disability Certificate, as the submitted form indicated she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal found the OCF-3 was complete and the applicant was not statute-barred.

However, on the substantive issue, the Tribunal compared the applicant's pre- and post-accident activities and found she failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting significant pre-existing physical and psychological limitations.

The claims for NEBs, an award, interest, and costs were dismissed.