Brittany Landry

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

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

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence, despite reminders.

The Tribunal proceeded with the hearing and dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving his injuries were not predominantly minor or that he was entitled to the disputed treatment plans.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, and the applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The matter proceeded to a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline or that she was entitled to the disputed treatment plans and interest.

The application was dismissed.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy, chiropractic, and massage therapy, as well as a physiatry assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The claim for medication expenses was denied because the applicant had not first submitted it to his extended health coverage.

Interest was awarded on all overdue benefits.

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

The insurer denied four treatment plans for chiropractic and massage therapy on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued entitlement based solely on the insurer's alleged failure to provide compliant denial notices under section 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the insurer's denial letters were compliant, as they identified the plans, provided medical reasons, and confirmed the MIG applied.

As the applicant provided no medical evidence to demonstrate her injuries fell outside the MIG, the Tribunal concluded she sustained a minor injury and dismissed the application.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to outstanding discovery undertakings and refusals, and for a third examination of the defendant's representative.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action for non-compliance with undertakings or, alternatively, to compel answers to their outstanding refusals.

Most undertakings were resolved by consent, and the jury notice was struck by agreement.

The court ruled on the remaining discovery refusals for both parties, ordering the defendant to provide an employee's employment file and information from a former employee regarding inspections, and ordering the plaintiff to provide information on other personal injury lawsuits and colour photos of footwear.

The plaintiff's request for a third examination was dismissed, with the court emphasizing proportionality in simplified procedure actions.

No costs were awarded to either party due to the mixed success and the nature of simplified procedure.