Charles Flaherty

The plaintiff brought a motion to set aside the registrar's administrative dismissal of his malicious prosecution action.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to dismiss the action as frivolous and vexatious.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding he failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and the defendant suffered actual prejudice.

The court also held that even if the dismissal were set aside, the action would be dismissed as frivolous and vexatious because the plaintiff could not establish the elements of malicious prosecution, given that the police independently laid the charges and the plaintiff pled guilty to assault.

The applicant sought an award under section 10 of Regulation 664, arguing the respondent unreasonably withheld benefits by subjecting her to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) despite her sustaining a concussion.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's initial medical records did not clearly diagnose a concussion and that the respondent acted reasonably in requesting an insurer's examination.

Once the neurologist recommended removing the applicant from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, the respondent complied.

The Tribunal concluded the respondent did not unreasonably withhold or delay benefits and dismissed the application for an award and interest.

The applicant sought a rehabilitation benefit of $6,482.72 for an adjustable bed and mattress following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefit, relying on a physiatrist's paper review which concluded the bed was not reasonable and necessary from a musculoskeletal perspective.

The Tribunal found the respondent's medical evidence unpersuasive and preferred the comprehensive reports of the applicant's occupational therapist and psychologist, which established that the applicant's chronic pain resulted in long-term sleep maintenance issues.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the cost of the bed and mattress, plus interest.

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

The respondent insurer required an independent psychological examination before determining whether the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued this was unreasonable and sought a special award under Regulation 664.

The Tribunal found the insurer acted reasonably in requesting the examination given the lack of recent medical information.

However, the Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the $200 cost of an updated OCF-3 disability certificate, finding it was an appropriate method for the applicant to notify the insurer of changed impairments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for home gym equipment.

The insurer denied the claim based on an insurer's examination.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant proved the gym equipment was reasonable and necessary to achieve pain reduction and increase strength, particularly given her childcare responsibilities which made attending a commercial gym difficult.

The Tribunal rejected the insurer's medical evidence as contradictory.

The applicant was awarded the cost of the equipment and interest, but her claim for a special award for unreasonable delay was dismissed because the insurer's delay in processing the denial was minimal.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $6,080.00 for optometric services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her onus of proving the treatment was reasonable and necessary, primarily because she failed to submit the disputed treatment plan (OCF-18) into evidence.

The other medical evidence provided did not adequately identify the goals of the proposed treatment.

The claims for the medical benefit, interest, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a severe motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer sent 28 notices stating that she did not qualify for non-earner benefits 'at this time'.

The insurer argued the applicant was barred from arbitration due to the two-year limitation period.

The arbitrator found that the insurer's notices were not clear and unequivocal denials, as they failed to provide a real basis for the refusal and the phrase 'at this time' created ambiguity.

Therefore, the limitation period had not begun to run, and the applicant was not precluded from proceeding to arbitration.