Callum J. Micucci

The applicant sought entitlement to various chiropractic and psychological treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident, as well as an award for unreasonable delay.

The Tribunal found all disputed treatment plans to be reasonable and necessary, noting consistent medical reporting and rejecting the insurer's credibility concerns.

The Tribunal also granted an award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits, particularly by denying psychological services despite agreement between its own assessor and the applicant's assessor.

The award was set at 10% for psychological services and 5% for chiropractic services.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans for chiropractic services on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG due to psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to establish a psychological impairment or chronic pain with functional limitations caused by the accident.

The Tribunal held that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, limiting his entitlement to the MIG cap.

Claims for an award for unreasonable delay and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied treatment plans for an electric bed and various occupational therapy devices, and attempted to argue the application was statute-barred due to the applicant's failure to attend an insurer's examination.

The Tribunal refused to hear the preliminary issue as it was not properly raised.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the electric bed, front entrance bench, carpet runner, grab bars, and body scrubber were reasonable and necessary due to the applicant's chronic left shoulder impairment and compromised balance.

The Tribunal denied the cost of bilateral railings for lack of a proper quote, and denied handheld shower heads as the applicant already had functional ones.

Interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries, including post-concussion syndrome, chronic pain, and psychological impairments, warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the benefits, asserting the injuries were minor.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including expert reports, relied heavily on inconsistent self-reports and lacked objective medical support.

Preferring the respondent's insurer examination reports, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The claims for treatment plans outside the MIG and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing conditions, psychological impairment, and chronic pain.

She also claimed entitlement to non-earner benefits and two treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish that her pre-existing conditions prevented recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, concluding the applicant sustained only minor soft tissue injuries and no diagnoseable psychological impairment.

The claims for non-earner benefits and treatment plans outside the MIG limit were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he should be removed from the MIG due to chronic pain, bursitis, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, noting his pain was improving, his bursitis was captured within the MIG definition, and his psychological symptoms did not constitute an impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not payable and the application was dismissed.

The defendant brought a threshold motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for non-pecuniary damages under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, arguing her injuries did not meet the "permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function" threshold.

Despite a jury finding the plaintiff 60% liable and the defendant 40% liable, and awarding $40,000 in non-pecuniary damages, the court granted the defendant's motion.

The court found the plaintiff's expert medical evidence unreliable due to incomplete and inaccurate information provided by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's own credibility was significantly undermined by inconsistencies regarding her injuries, activities, and financial situation.

Consequently, the plaintiff failed to establish that her injuries met the statutory threshold, and her claim for general damages was dismissed as statute-barred.

The defendant brought a motion for a mistrial following the plaintiff's opening address to the jury.

The court found that the plaintiff's opening address contained inflammatory remarks, appeals to emotion, personal opinions, misstatements of fact, and improper references to the defendant's eye condition and the defendant's insurer.

The court determined that the cumulative effect of these improprieties created a real danger of prejudice and a miscarriage of justice, which could not be cured by jury instructions without negatively impacting the jury's perception of counsel and the plaintiff.

Consequently, the motion for a mistrial was granted.

The plaintiff sought to put several questions regarding pecuniary damages (past loss of income, future loss of income, future cost of care, housekeeping/home maintenance, and loss of competitive advantage) to the jury.

The court ruled that there was insufficient "reasonable evidence" to support these questions, as the plaintiff's evidence was too speculative, lacked specificity, and did not adequately account for contingencies or causation, especially given subsequent accidents.

Consequently, the judge dismissed the plaintiff's request to put these questions to the jury.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found him to be within the Minor Injury Guideline and not entitled to several disputed treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of law in applying the test for adequate medical reasons under s. 38(8) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and failing to consider the consequences of s. 38(11).

The adjudicator granted the reconsideration in part, finding an error of law was made regarding the plans for an attendant care assessment, functional ability evaluation, and psychological assessment.

The adjudicator varied the decision, holding the insurer liable to pay for those plans once incurred, as the insurer's denial notices were deficient and could no longer be cured.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to prove any pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, or chronic pain with functional impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

As the MIG funding limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

A written hearing was scheduled, but the applicant failed to provide any submissions or evidence despite multiple opportunities and adjournments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden to prove entitlement to the disputed treatment plans or removal from the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicants sought judicial review of interlocutory orders staying their proceedings before the License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) regarding catastrophic impairment claims.

The LAT had stayed the proceedings to allow the applicants to attend medical examinations requested by the insurer.

The Divisional Court dismissed the applications as premature, applying the principle that courts should not interfere with ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.

The court found no such exceptional circumstances, even though the applicants raised a jurisdictional issue regarding the LAT's power to issue the stays.

This appeal concerned an insurer's duty to defend its insured, Panasonic Eco Solutions Canada Inc., against two breach of contract claims in an arbitration.

The professional errors and omissions policy excluded contractual liability unless the liability would exist in the absence of the contract.

The application judge found a duty to defend one claim (Engineering Agreement) but not the other (Proceeds Agreement).

The Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal and dismissed the insured's cross-appeal, finding no duty to defend either claim.

The court held that the liquidated damages claim under the Engineering Agreement was purely contractual and the sole remedy, thus falling within the exclusion.

The claim under the Proceeds Agreement was for a contractual debt, and related negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment claims were also not covered by the policy.

Panasonic Eco Solutions Canada Inc. sought a declaration that its insurer, XL Specialty Insurance Company, owed it a duty to defend an underlying arbitration claim.

The arbitration involved claims for liquidated damages arising from an Engineering Agreement and damages from a Proceeds Agreement.

The insurance policy was an errors and omissions policy with a contractual liability exclusion.

The court granted the application for a duty to defend in respect of the liquidated damages claim, finding that the facts alleged could support a claim for negligence despite being pleaded as breach of contract.

However, the court dismissed the application for the Proceeds Agreement claim, determining it was purely contractual, a debt claim, or involved negligent misrepresentation of intent to pay, which fell within the contractual exclusion or the policy's exclusion for equitable relief.

XL was granted the right to control the defence of the liquidated damages claim.

Costs were ordered to be borne by each party due to divided success.