David Gardiner

The applicant sought $1,153.17 for assistive devices following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the devices were reasonable and necessary, as occupational therapy assessments indicated she could complete transfers and bathing independently.

The claims for the treatment plan, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought $1,153.17 for assistive devices under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent denied the treatment plan.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed assistive devices, including a raised toilet seat, tub transfer bench, and grab bar, were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant demonstrated independence in transfers and personal care, and there was no corroborating medical opinion recommending the items for safety.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award were denied.

The applicant, a Quebec resident injured in an Ontario motor vehicle accident, sought a medical benefit for assistive devices from the respondent insurer.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant was required to first seek benefits from the SAAQ under Quebec's Automobile Accident Insurance Act, as Ontario statutory accident benefits are excess insurance.

The Tribunal agreed the applicant was obliged to apply to the SAAQ and the respondent was generally entitled to deduct available collateral benefits.

However, the Tribunal found the respondent was estopped from doing so for this specific claim because it had adjusted the file for nearly two years and approved the devices in full without ever advising the applicant of her obligation to apply to the SAAQ.

The Tribunal ordered payment of the benefit with interest and granted a 50% award under section 10 of Regulation 664 due to the respondent's unreasonable delay and change in position.

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

The respondent denied a treatment plan and the applicant applied to the Tribunal after the two-year limitation period expired.

The Tribunal found the respondent's denial was valid and triggered the limitation period.

The applicant failed to provide submissions to justify an extension of time under section 7 of the LAT Act.

As the treatment plan claim was statute-barred, the Tribunal ruled it could not hear the Minor Injury Guideline determination as a standalone issue.

The application was dismissed and costs were denied.