Christopher Marshall

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered an accident-related psychological condition, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychological assessor over the respondent's, noting it was corroborated by medical records of post-traumatic headaches and sleep disturbances.

The Tribunal awarded the costs of a psychological assessment and psychological treatment, but denied a treatment plan for physiotherapy, finding the physical injuries were minor and unrelated degenerative issues.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, and the matter proceeded to a written hearing before the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The applicant failed to file any written submissions or evidence and did not request an extension.

The Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence pursuant to section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof, the application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries—including chronic pain, psychological impairments, post-concussive syndrome, and pre-existing conditions—warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence or documentation from treating physicians to substantiate her claims for removal from the MIG.

As the applicant's injuries were deemed predominantly minor and the MIG limits were exhausted, her claims for various treatment plans, interest, and a punitive award were dismissed.

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

The Tribunal scheduled a written hearing, but the applicant failed to file any submissions or evidence, nor did they request an extension.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed.

Pursuant to section 7(2) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, the Tribunal proceeded in the applicant's absence.

Finding that the applicant failed to meet their burden of proof to demonstrate removal from the Minor Injury Guideline and entitlement to the disputed benefits, the Tribunal dismissed the application.

In a medical negligence action, the self-represented plaintiff brought a broad motion seeking numerous forms of relief including adding additional defendants, converting the action into a class proceeding, increasing damages, obtaining injunctive relief against the defendant physician and his counsel, and compelling production of various medical records.

The court denied the plaintiff’s adjournment request and deemed the motion abandoned when the plaintiff failed to appear.

The judge held that, even if the motion had proceeded, most requested relief lacked evidentiary support or was legally unavailable, including claims against opposing counsel and a proposed wrongful death claim barred by limitation under the Trustee Act.

On the defendant’s motion, the court struck several paragraphs of the statement of claim as irrelevant or containing improper pleadings under Rule 25.06(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and issued directions regarding document disclosure, service, and litigation timelines.