Charu Mehta

The plaintiff, Ms. Emmanuel, sought general damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.

A jury found her 75% at fault but awarded general damages and Family Law Act damages.

The court then conducted a threshold analysis under the Insurance Act to determine if Ms. Emmanuel's injuries constituted a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function.

The court found insufficient objective medical evidence to support permanence of physical injuries and no sufficient evidence for psychological injuries beyond 2017, especially considering her post-accident activities and lack of consistent treatment.

Consequently, the court dismissed the action, finding that Ms. Emmanuel did not meet the statutory threshold for non-pecuniary damages.

The applicant sought to dispute the denial of a chiropractic treatment plan, income replacement benefits (IRBs), and attendant care benefits (ACBs) more than two years after the initial denials.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was statute-barred from disputing the chiropractic treatment plan under section 56 of the Schedule.

However, applying the Manuel factors, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under section 7 of the LAT Act to extend the limitation period for the IRBs.

For the ACBs, the Tribunal found the limitation clock had not started because there was no formal refusal to pay, and directed the parties to address whether section 55 of the Schedule barred the claim at a subsequent case conference.