David Tomovski

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, optometric services, and prescription expenses.

The respondent denied the treatment plans on the basis that they were not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving the treatments were reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the respondent's insurer's examination assessors over the applicant's treatment plans and reports, which lacked sufficient documentation and relied on unsupported assumptions of a concussion.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to pre-existing rheumatoid arthritis, psychological impairments, and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant's rheumatoid arthritis was in remission and did not prevent maximal recovery.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, concluding the applicant did not suffer from a psychological impairment or chronic pain syndrome that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The applicant's physical injuries were deemed predominantly minor.

The disputed treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary only up to the remaining MIG limits.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed for failing to provide particulars.

This endorsement addresses the costs of two unsuccessful summary judgment motions brought by the Allan Star defendants and Ms. Samuel, which were dismissed due to genuine issues for trial regarding the plaintiff's credibility.

The plaintiffs sought $75,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the defendants proposed $30,000.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $55,000 in partial indemnity costs, payable two-thirds by the Allan Star defendants and one-third by Ms. Samuel.

The decision considered factors under Rule 57.01, including the result, stakes, complexity, parties' conduct, and the reasonable expectations of costs, noting that the defendants' own costs outlines were an objective indicator of what they could expect to pay.

The plaintiffs, George MacPherson and his minor daughter Sierra, brought an action for damages after George MacPherson suffered a serious back injury falling from a roof.

The defendants, including the homeowner (Samuel) and roofing contractors (Allan Star Roofing Ltd. and Ebrahim Khezri), moved for summary judgment to dismiss the claims against them.

The court dismissed both summary judgment motions, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly concerning witness credibility regarding the provision of safety equipment and knowledge of unsafe conditions.

The court emphasized that it was not in the interest of justice to grant partial summary judgment due to the risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent factual findings, especially given the presence of a jury notice.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal considered whether the applicant was entitled to treatment plans for social work services, chiropractic/massage/physiotherapy, and a psychological assessment, as well as a special award.

The Tribunal found the treatment plans reasonable and necessary, awarding the claimed amounts (with a minor deduction for the social work plan).

The claim for a special award was dismissed as there was no evidence the insurer unreasonably withheld or delayed payment.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit and medical benefits beyond the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue injuries falling within the MIG.

While the applicant suffered from major depression and PTSD, the Tribunal concluded these psychological impairments were caused by his difficult experiences as a refugee from Albania, not the accident.

Consequently, the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life as a result of the accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought increased attendant care benefits and payment for past attendant care expenses following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's right arm impairments did not require Level 3 complex care, making the insurer's approved monthly amount reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for past expenses, finding the applicant failed to prove the expenses were 'incurred' under the Schedule due to insufficient documentation of the services provided.