Charles Thompson

The applicant sought Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer claimed a deduction for post-accident payments the applicant received from her mother's business, where she had been employed prior to the accident.

The applicant argued the payments were a gift, as she was not actively working.

The Tribunal found that the payments constituted employment income, noting they were paid in the same manner as pre-accident wages, with standard tax deductions, and reported as income to the CRA.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to provide contemporaneous evidence to rebut the presumption of employment income and establish the legal elements of a gift.

The respondent was entitled to deduct the income, reducing the IRB payable to nil.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a LAT decision which found that post-accident payments made to the applicant by her mother's corporation were gifts and not deductible from her Income Replacement Benefit (IRB).

The Vice-Chair granted the reconsideration, finding that the original adjudicator's written reasons were inadequate and constituted a denial of natural justice.

The adjudicator failed to address major points in issue, incorrectly summarized the parties' positions, and did not set out a reasoning process.

The decision was cancelled and the matter was referred back to the original adjudicator for a written rehearing based on the existing evidentiary record.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The respondent insurer claimed deductions under s. 7(3) of the Schedule for post-accident payments the applicant received from her employer, a restaurant owned by her mother.

The Tribunal found that the payments were a gift intended to help the applicant financially, not employment income or a temporary disability benefit.

The applicant met the legal test for a gift, as there was an intention to give without expectation of remuneration, acceptance, and transfer.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the IRBs without deductions, plus interest.

The Applicant sought compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for physical and psychological injuries sustained during three assaults in her apartment in 2015.

The Board found that the Applicant was a victim of crimes of violence, having suffered a broken rib, cuts, and psychological harm after allowing drug dealers to use her apartment as a crack house in exchange for drugs.

However, the Board reduced the compensation award under sections 17(1) and 17(2) of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, finding that the Applicant's willing participation in the drug trade contributed to her injuries and that she failed to reasonably cooperate with police investigations.

The Board awarded a global sum of $4,000 for pain and suffering, plus $422 for travel and legal costs.