Brian Pak

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claim for ongoing Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law by admitting the respondent's medical reports without expert duty forms, by requiring proof of a scientific psychiatric illness, and by misapprehending evidence regarding his medication and marijuana use.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the reconsideration request, finding that the Executive Chair had the statutory authority to delegate the reconsideration, the adjudicator properly exercised discretion in admitting the reports, and there was no error of law or misapprehension of evidence in concluding the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof.

The applicant sought to set aside a settlement agreement regarding statutory accident benefits, arguing he lacked mental capacity and was under duress when he signed it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to rescind the settlement within the two-day cooling period required by O. Reg. 664.

The Tribunal held that the applicant did not establish on a balance of probabilities that he lacked capacity or was under duress at the time of settlement.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred, and the respondent's request for costs was denied.

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

The respondent insurer scheduled a section 44 psychological assessment, which the applicant refused to attend.

The respondent argued the applicant was precluded from proceeding with the application due to this refusal.

The Tribunal found that the respondent's notice for the section 44 assessment failed to include medical or other reasons for the examination, rendering it non-compliant with the Schedule.

Consequently, the applicant was not precluded from proceeding with the application.