Cary N. Schneider

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from accident-related psychological impairments, including PTSD and depression, which removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for the disputed physiotherapy services and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was also awarded interest on overdue payments.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664 and for costs, finding the insurer's conduct did not meet the high threshold of bad faith or unreasonableness.

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

The respondent suspended income replacement benefits after the applicant failed to provide requested financial and tax documents.

The Tribunal found that the requested documents were reasonably required under s. 33(1) of the Schedule to verify pre- and post-accident income, and upheld the suspension of benefits.

The Tribunal also approved treatment plans for physiotherapy and partial payment for physiatry and neurological assessments, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the applicant's ongoing chronic pain and concussion symptoms.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed as the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs) and funding for physiotherapy and a physiatry assessment.

The insurer had suspended IRBs due to the applicant's failure to attend section 44 examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, relying on functional abilities evaluations and the applicant's return to work as a cashier.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for physiotherapy as not reasonable and necessary, and declined to order a special award, finding the insurer did not unreasonably withhold benefits.

The insurer agreed to fund the physiatry assessment, and the Tribunal ordered interest on that overdue payment.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered whether the applicant was entitled to psychological and physiotherapy services, interest, and an award under s. 10 of Reg. 664.

The Tribunal denied the claim for psychological services, finding the proposed treatment was not reasonable and necessary given the lack of lasting improvement.

However, the Tribunal granted the claim for physiotherapy services, noting corroborating evidence of chronic pain from treating specialists.

The claim for an award under s. 10 was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a 2017 order dismissing his action for delay, arguing he failed to appear due to accident, mistake, or insufficient notice, largely attributable to his prior counsel's failures.

The court considered the "forthwith" requirement for bringing such a motion, the lengthy delay and its reasons, the presence or absence of prejudice to the defendant, and the underlying merits of the plaintiff's case.

The court found that the plaintiff's previous lawyers were primarily responsible for the delay, that the defendant did not suffer actual, non-compensable prejudice, and that the plaintiff had a meritorious case.

The motion was granted, the dismissal order set aside, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion to determine whether the applicant's slip and fall incident constituted an 'accident' under section 3(1) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant had loaded a clothes dryer onto a pickup truck and subsequently slipped on an icy road, causing the dryer to allegedly fall on him.

The Tribunal applied the purpose and causation tests, finding that while the purpose test was met, the causation test was not.

The Tribunal concluded that the icy road was an intervening cause and the vehicle was not the dominant feature of the injuries.

The application for benefits was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied benefits beyond the $3,500 Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The applicant argued that her physical injuries, pre-existing alopecia, psychological impairments, and chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were uncomplicated soft-tissue injuries.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence, noting that the applicant's psychological and chronic pain diagnoses were not supported by her family physician's clinical notes and records, and that her experts failed to review fulsome medical documentation.

The application was dismissed, and the disputed treatment plans were found not payable.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for accident benefits.

The LAT adjudicator had found the appellant credible but concluded there was insufficient corroborating evidence to prove his injuries were caused by a motor vehicle accident.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law and holding that the adjudicator's findings of fact were amply supported by the record.

The applicant sought post-104 week income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits based on insurer's examinations concluding the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's experts, noting the applicant exaggerated his pain symptoms and his alleged impairments lacked an objective basis causally linked to the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs in a class proceeding sought approval of the long-form and short-form notices to be distributed to affected class members following a previously approved settlement.

The court approved the notices, finding them to be in plain language and clear regarding participation and opt-out procedures.

The court also permitted the notices to be distributed in English only, as the defendant only provided services in English.

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found he had not established on a balance of probabilities that he was struck by a vehicle.

The applicant argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness by finding him credible but still dismissing the claim, and made errors of law in weighing medical and police records.

The Tribunal dismissed the request for reconsideration, holding that credibility is distinct from reliability and does not automatically discharge the burden of proof.

The Tribunal found no error in the original assessment that the corroborating evidence was insufficient to prove an accident occurred.

The plaintiffs in a putative class proceeding regarding a cyber-breach of the defendant's computer systems sought approval of a notice plan for a proposed settlement.

The court approved the notice plan, which included direct notice to known affected individuals and indirect notice via press release and social media, finding it maximized breadth while minimizing costs.

The court ordered one amendment to include the Zoom link for the upcoming settlement approval hearing.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an automobile accident.

The respondent insurer raised a preliminary issue, arguing it was not required to pay income replacement benefits under s. 31(1) of the Schedule because the applicant intentionally failed to disclose a material change in risk.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had moved from Brantford to Toronto and intentionally failed to notify the insurer of this change of address, which would have significantly increased his insurance premiums.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that the respondent was not required to pay the applicant an income replacement benefit.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's application for IRBs was not properly delivered to the respondent's designated contact person until April 25, 2019.

The respondent failed to provide a compliant denial notice under s. 36(4) of the Schedule until February 24, 2020, entitling the applicant to IRBs for that period.

However, the applicant failed to provide sufficient financial documentation, including tax returns, to allow the Tribunal to calculate the quantum of IRBs payable.

Claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

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

The insurer denied the benefits pending receipt of further medical information.

The applicant brought a preliminary issue hearing arguing the insurer failed to comply with the 10-day response requirement under section 36 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and should therefore be ordered to pay the benefits pending the substantive hearing.

The Tribunal found the insurer responded within the required timeframe and reasonably requested further information under section 33.

The preliminary issue was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous decision that denied his claim for a higher quantum of income replacement benefits (IRB), disputed treatment plans, and an award.

The applicant argued the adjudicator violated procedural fairness and made errors of law and fact by relying on the respondent's in-house accounting report, rejecting the applicant's self-employment source documentation, and misapplying the law regarding a psychotherapist's hourly rate.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request for reconsideration, finding no breach of procedural fairness or errors of law or fact that would have changed the result.

The Vice Chair held that the applicant was attempting to reargue his case and had failed to meet his onus of proof regarding his self-employment income.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after allegedly being struck by an unidentified vehicle while crossing a street.

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that there was no evidence a vehicle was involved.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving that a vehicle caused his injuries, as there were no witnesses, no police report confirming a collision, and medical records were equivocal about the cause of his injuries.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, which the respondent insurer denied.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from ongoing post-concussion symptoms that caused a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment, entitling her to income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal also approved treatment plans for an attendant care assessment, a functional abilities assessment, and a portion of a psychological treatment plan, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed a claim for physical therapy services.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered a 25% award against the respondent under Ontario Regulation 664, finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld the attendant care and functional abilities assessments by failing to properly investigate the applicant's concussion symptoms and relying on flawed independent medical examinations.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently went on maternity leave, receiving Employment Insurance (EI) maternity benefits.

The insurer conceded entitlement to Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) but sought to deduct the EI maternity benefits and available employer top-up amounts from the IRB quantum.

The Tribunal held that EI maternity benefits and employer top-ups fall within the definition of 'gross employment income' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule and are therefore deductible from IRBs.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was entitled to interest on overdue IRBs but dismissed the claim for a special award, noting the delay was due to the applicant's failure to provide requested employment documentation.

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

The insurer denied certain benefits and requested the applicant attend insurer's examinations to determine ongoing entitlement to income replacement benefits.

The applicant refused to attend, arguing the insurer's reasons were boilerplate and insufficient.

The Tribunal found the insurer's reasons satisfied the notice requirements under section 44 of the Schedule, as they provided a principled rationale based fairly on the applicant's file.

Consequently, the applicant was statute-barred from proceeding with her application under section 55(1)2 of the Schedule, and the application was dismissed.