Delaney McCartan

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found he remained within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and was not entitled to disputed treatment plans.

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in fact and law by failing to find he suffered a neurocognitive disorder or psychological impairment, and sought to introduce new evidence of a concussion.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the case and re-weigh evidence.

The Tribunal held that the adjudicator provided comprehensive reasons for rejecting the applicant's evidence, and the new evidence did not meet the test for reconsideration.

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

The respondent denied the claims and requested the applicant attend insurer's examinations under s. 44 of the Schedule.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled examinations and provided no reasonable explanation for his non-attendance.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was barred from proceeding with his claims for attendant care benefits and vestibular physiotherapy.

The Tribunal further dismissed the claim for an occupational therapy treatment plan, finding the applicant failed to prove it was reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming psychological impairments and a concussion warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries were minor.

The Tribunal found the applicant's self-reported limitations inconsistent with his post-accident ability to attend school and work.

The Tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's treating practitioners, who were not qualified as experts and relied on assumptions or invalid test profiles.

Accepting the respondent's expert evidence, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to meet his burden to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG.

All claims for attendant care, treatment plans, and an award were dismissed.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) declining to add a claim for punitive damages to a dispute over Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) claims.

Relying on its concurrent decision in Keulen v. Allstate Insurance Company, the Divisional Court held that the LAT does not have the authority to award punitive damages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent insurer.