Brent McQuestion

The applicant sought attendant care benefits of $2,058.90 per month following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

In a partial rehearing, the Licence Appeal Tribunal considered competing occupational therapy assessments regarding the applicant's need for assistance with personal care, meal preparation, and hygiene.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's position that no attendant care was required, finding that the applicant's pain, fatigue, and lack of motivation necessitated assistance.

However, the Tribunal reduced the applicant's claimed hours, finding some requests duplicative or mitigated by approved assistive devices.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits of $522.30 per month from January 30, 2026, ongoing.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claim for attendant care benefits up to the date of the decision but failed to address her claim for ongoing benefits.

The Vice-Chair found that the Tribunal made an error of fact or law under Rule 18.2(b) by not explicitly determining the issue of ongoing entitlement, which had been properly raised.

The reconsideration was granted, and the issue of ongoing attendant care benefits was ordered to be reheard by a new adjudicator based on the original written submissions.

The applicant, who sustained catastrophic impairments in a motor vehicle accident, sought payment for various treatment plans, including occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and medical cannabis.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the medical cannabis was reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's indigenous cultural preference for natural remedies and supporting medical evidence.

The Tribunal also awarded travel expenses for service providers, recognizing the remote nature of the applicant's underserviced reservation.

However, the Tribunal denied several claims for full OCF-18 form completion fees, finding one hour to be reasonable, and denied further physiotherapy and social work counselling due to a lack of compelling evidence from the applicant.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including attendant care benefits and various treatment plans.

The respondent denied the claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the attendant care benefits were incurred or reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessments.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the outstanding balances of several partially approved treatment plans, finding the applicant did not meet her burden to establish their reasonableness and necessity.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for various treatment plans under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer denied the portions of the treatment plans relating to provider mileage.

The Tribunal found that the mileage costs were reasonable and necessary because the applicant required environment-specific treatment in the community and at home due to his severe injuries.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the outstanding balances for the mileage expenses, plus interest.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a 2015 motor vehicle accident, sought entitlement to tutoring support for her daughter, attendant care benefits, and home modifications.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for tutoring support, finding no evidence that the daughter required a tutor.

While the Tribunal found the applicant's attendant care needs were $3,155.86 per month based on her psychological and cognitive impairments, it denied payment because the expenses had not been incurred.

The claim for home modifications was dismissed as the applicant failed to connect the proposed modifications to her accident-related impairments.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for massage therapy and chiropractic services, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's occupational therapist who conducted a comprehensive in-home assessment over the insurer's independent medical examination.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's preliminary motion to strike the respondent's late-filed written submissions, finding no prejudice to the applicant.

The applicant was awarded the disputed treatment plans and interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including funding for a psychological assessment, psychological services, and chiropractic services.

The respondent denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence corroborating his self-reported symptoms and relying on the respondent's s. 44 assessments which found no accident-related impairments warranting the proposed treatments.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to treatment plans beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit due to a concussion and post-concussion syndrome.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered an accident-related concussion warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which found no neurocognitive impairment, over the applicant's expert evidence, which was deemed contradictory.

The application for the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming a catastrophic impairment due to a traumatic brain injury under section 3.1(1)4 of the Schedule.

The applicant relied on SPECT scans and an occupational therapy assessment to satisfy the two-prong test.

The Tribunal assigned no weight to the SPECT scans, finding they failed to distinguish the age of the injury or account for the applicant's pre-existing psychological issues.

As the applicant failed to establish positive findings of intracranial pathology on a medically recognized brain diagnostic technology, the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought resolution of a dispute over statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The issues included whether the insurer was required to pay income replacement benefits directly to the applicant, entitlement to the balance of a neuropsychological assessment, and a claim for a special award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found that the insurer unreasonably delayed payment by unilaterally deciding to send the income replacement benefits to the applicant's representative rather than the applicant directly, without a court finding of incapacity.

The Tribunal awarded 20% of the value of the payments sent to the representative.

However, the Tribunal denied the remaining cost of the neuropsychological assessment, finding it constituted a single assessment subject to the $2,000 limit under the Schedule.

The minor applicant, who suffered a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, sought non-earner benefits (NEBs).

The insurer denied the claim, arguing NEBs are not payable until the applicant turns 18, and since he would not turn 18 within 104 weeks of the accident, he would never be entitled.

The insurer also argued the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to order future payments.

The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to determine entitlement because the insurer had issued a denial.

Interpreting the Schedule harmoniously, the Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to NEBs for the 104-week period following the accident, with payment deferred until he reaches 18 years of age.

An order was also granted to anonymize the minor applicant's identity.

The respondent brought a motion to quash a summons issued to the Director of Clinical Services & Operations at an independent medical examination facility.

The applicant sought to examine the witness regarding the facility's quality assurance process and alleged inappropriate changes to draft reports.

The Tribunal granted the motion and quashed the summons, finding that the applicant failed to establish the witness had relevant first-hand knowledge.

The Tribunal also found the summons was an abuse of process because it breached a prior Case Conference Report and Order and required the production of an excessively broad array of documents.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRB) and two treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was self-employed and a 50% owner of a cleaning business.

Applying section 4(3) of the Schedule, the Tribunal calculated her pre-accident income based on her last completed taxation year.

Because the business continued to generate significant profit post-accident, the insurer was entitled to deduct 70% of her share of the post-accident self-employment income under section 7(3)(b), reducing her IRB entitlement to nil.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, finding they were not proven to be reasonable and necessary and that the applicant had exhausted her medical rehabilitation limits.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought a non-earner benefit and funding for rehabilitation therapy under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit because she did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to care for her animals, perform chores, and socialize.

However, the Tribunal granted the claim for rehabilitation therapy, finding it reasonable and necessary to assist with community reintegration and anxiety, and awarded interest on the overdue payment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic and massage therapy treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide corroborating medical evidence to support the treatment plans, relying solely on the OCF-18 forms.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's insurer examination report, which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and exhibited no observable impairments.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, sought $14,900 for housekeeping and home maintenance expenses incurred prior to the catastrophic impairment determination.

The services were provided by her adult son.

The Tribunal found that the expenses were not 'incurred' under section 3(7)(e)(iii) of the Schedule because the son did not provide the services in the course of his ordinary employment or sustain an economic loss.

The Tribunal also declined to deem the expenses incurred under section 3(8), finding that the insurer did not unreasonably withhold or delay payment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, injured in a motor vehicle accident, brought a motion to compel the respondent insurer to produce the full accident benefits file, including independent medical examination (IME) files and adjuster log notes, and sought costs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal ordered the respondent to produce the requested documents, subject to redactions for privilege.

The Tribunal also awarded the applicant $500 in costs, finding that the respondent acted unreasonably and in bad faith by failing to comply with a previous consent order to produce the IME file and by ignoring the applicant's correspondence.

The applicant sought a rehabilitation benefit of $7,545.00 for personal training and a gym membership following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary.

Medical evidence indicated the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement and did not specifically endorse the requested exercise program.

The claim was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a bicycle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer scheduled an insurer examination with a neuropsychologist, providing notice that it would be a 'paper review' and attendance was not required.

However, the applicant attended an in-person examination.

The applicant brought a motion to exclude the resulting reports, arguing the notice was defective under s. 44(5) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the notice was invalid and prejudiced the applicant by denying him the opportunity to provide relevant information prior to the assessment.

The Tribunal excluded the neuropsychologist's evidence from the in-person examination but found the applicant's request to preclude further examinations premature.