Chelsea Danielle Gilder

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered an accident-related psychological condition (depression and vehicular anxiety), which removed him from the MIG.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the claims for the chiropractic treatment plans, finding them not reasonable and necessary as the applicant had reached maximum therapeutic benefit and lacked corroborating objective medical evidence for physical impairments.

Claims for interest and a section 10 award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment (CAT) under Criteria 7 and 8.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant did not meet her burden of proof.

Under Criterion 7, the applicant's own assessors provided conflicting mental and behavioural impairment ratings (40% vs. 34% WPI), and even combining the lower rating with her physical impairment rating did not meet the 55% threshold.

Under Criterion 8, the Tribunal rejected findings of 'at times' Marked impairment as ambiguous and noted unexplained inconsistencies between the applicant's assessors regarding her level of impairment over time.

The applicant's claims for various treatment plans, an award, and interest were also dismissed as she failed to provide submissions or evidence supporting the plans.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after falling in a parking lot while loading groceries into her vehicle.

The insurer denied the claim on the basis that the incident was a slip and fall, not an 'accident' under the Schedule.

The applicant filed an appeal with the Tribunal more than two years after receiving the denial letter by registered mail.

The Tribunal found the denial letter was valid and triggered the limitation period.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the LAT Act, finding the applicant failed to establish a bona fide intention to appeal or provide medical evidence supporting the merits of her claim.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and medical benefits for physiotherapy and psychological services.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to a non-earner benefit as he failed to establish a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

However, the Tribunal determined the applicant's psychological impairments, including a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, exceeded the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal awarded funding for the disputed physiotherapy and psychological counselling services, but denied the request for a psychological assessment as duplicative.

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

The respondent denied various treatment plans and income replacement benefits, asserting the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he sustained a psychological impairment or chronic pain warranting removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, which was consistent with the family physician's records showing no psychological complaints and a return to full-time work.

The claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed because the applicant failed to submit a completed Disability Certificate prior to the period claimed.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a preliminary issue decision that found her statute-barred from proceeding with her LAT application for failing to attend Insurer's Examinations.

The applicant alleged errors of fact and law, procedural unfairness, and adjudicator bias.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no errors or bias, and strongly criticized the applicant's counsel for toxic and baseless submissions.

The respondent's request for costs was declined to avoid penalizing the applicant for her counsel's behaviour.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement and medical benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant did not meet the requisite disability tests and the treatments were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment for the first 104 weeks, entitling her to income replacement benefits for the disputed period up to the 104-week mark.

However, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment thereafter.

The Tribunal also found the disputed physiotherapy and psychological treatment plans to be reasonable and necessary, ordering their payment with interest.

The plaintiff, Paramjit Singh, and the defendant, Shoppers Home Health Care (Ontario) Inc., each sought costs following a four-week jury trial.

The jury found Shoppers liable for Mr. Singh's injuries but also found Mr. Singh 75% contributorily negligent, resulting in a total award of approximately $73,000, which was less favorable than Shoppers' Rule 49.10 settlement offer of $100,000.

The court determined that Shoppers' global offer to multiple plaintiffs (Mr. Singh and his family with FLA claims) was valid and triggered Rule 49.10 cost consequences.

The court then assessed Mr. Singh's partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and Shoppers' partial indemnity costs from that date to the end of trial, considering factors under Rule 57.01.

Despite Mr. Singh's success on liability, his low recovery and high contributory negligence meant the Rule 49.10 offer was beaten.

The court ultimately concluded that the allowable costs for both parties were effectively equivalent ($131,633 for Mr. Singh and $128,500-$138,500 for Shoppers) and declined to order costs payable by either party.

The defendant, Ontario, sought leave to appeal a decision certifying a class action and refusing to strike the plaintiff's claim.

The plaintiff's claim alleged that detaining individuals in jail while awaiting a psychiatric hospital bed under a Criminal Code assessment order violated Charter rights and breached fiduciary duties, relying on the decision in R. v. Hussein.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the certification decision because the motion judge accepted the plaintiff's legal interpretation of Hussein as a pleaded fact, and because individual issues regarding the separate purposes of detention and assessment could overwhelm common issues.