Denise Junkin

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including post-104 income replacement benefits (IRB), medical benefits, and a special award.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the test for post-104 IRB, as she failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, noting inconsistencies in the applicant's reporting and her failure to complete several assessments.

The claims for medical benefits, assessments, and a special award were also dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for Income Replacement Benefits and various treatment plans.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact by failing to properly consider medical evidence, made errors of law by misapplying the test for post-104-week benefits, and breached procedural fairness by providing insufficient reasons.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the original adjudicator properly weighed the evidence, applied the correct legal tests, and provided sufficient reasons in accordance with the Vavilov standard.

The request for reconsideration was denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2020 motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), various treatment plans, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were due to pre-existing degenerative disc disease and a prior 2016 accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her impairments were caused by the subject accident, relying on the respondent's s. 44 assessors who concluded her physical and psychological complaints were not accident-related.

All claims for IRBs, treatment plans, assessments, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that removed the insured from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), approved various treatment plans, and granted a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request regarding the MIG and treatment plans, finding that the insurer was improperly seeking to re-weigh the evidence and had not demonstrated an error of law.

However, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration regarding the special award.

The Tribunal concluded it had erred in law by penalizing the insurer for relying on its independent expert reports, as such reliance does not meet the high threshold of unreasonable conduct required for a special award.

The original decision was varied to cancel the special award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's documented pre-existing lower back and bilateral knee conditions precluded maximal medical recovery within the MIG, removing him from its limits.

The Tribunal approved treatment plans for chiropractic services, medical devices, and a functional ability assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, treatment plans for an attendant care assessment and a psychological assessment were denied for lack of compelling medical evidence.

The Tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay a special award of $1,714.36 under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by ignoring the pre-accident medical evidence.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had been diagnosed with chronic pain, there was insufficient evidence that the pain caused severe distress accompanied by functional impairment or disability.

The Tribunal noted the applicant self-reported not taking medication and being independent with self-care.

As the applicant failed to prove her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were denied.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic lower back pain resulting from accident-related weight gain.

The applicant also sought non-earner benefits, arguing she was unable to return to her pre-accident work as a Personal Support Worker.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her injuries fell outside the MIG, noting her weight gain was not demonstrably caused by functional limitations from the accident.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, finding the applicant's current duties as a foster parent were inconsistent with a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for physiotherapy and various assessments under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the treatment plans based on insurer examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ongoing reports of pain and functional limitations, supported by medical records, established that the disputed physiotherapy treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the disputed benefits along with interest on the overdue amounts.

Following the dismissal of the defendants' motions for summary judgment, the court determined the costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on an unaccepted offer to settle the motions.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, noting that Rule 49.10 does not provide a responding party much incentive to make an offer to settle in advance of a motion.

The court fixed the plaintiff's costs on a partial indemnity basis at $38,328, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, to be paid equally by the three moving party groups.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired following a 2012 motorcycle accident, sought entitlement to 24-hour attendant care benefits ($7,522.85 per month) due to severe psychological impairments, including panic attacks, memory issues, and anger outbursts.

The respondent argued that 24-hour supervision was not an appropriate psychological treatment and recommended cognitive behavioural therapy instead.

The Tribunal found that while therapy might eventually reduce the applicant's fear of being alone, the proposed attendant care was reasonable and necessary in the interim to address significant safety concerns and manage his psychological symptoms.

The applicant was awarded the ongoing attendant care benefits.

The defendants jointly brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's slip and fall personal injury claim.

The plaintiff slipped on ice while attempting to enter a bridal store.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the factual record was highly disputed and the electronic materials filed by the parties were voluminous, unorganized, and lacked necessary hyperlinks.

The court emphasized that summary judgment is inappropriate when the record does not allow the judge to confidently make findings of fact, and strongly criticized the profession's failure to properly prepare electronic motion records.

The appellant, an Uber driver, sought accident benefits after an altercation with passengers resulted in him swerving his vehicle and injuring his knee.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claim, finding the incident did not meet the definition of an 'accident' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule as it failed both the purpose and causation tests.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal applied the correct legal tests from Chisolm and that the appellant's challenges were impermissible appeals of factual findings.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice due to delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The action arose from an alleged assault at a festival in 2015.

The court considered the severe backlog of civil jury trials in the Central East Region and the prejudice to the plaintiff from open-ended delay.

The court provisionally struck the jury notice and ordered the matter placed on the non-jury trial list for the May 2021 sittings, with leave for the defendants to move to restore the jury notice if the matter is not reached.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and were subject to the $3,500 funding limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of a psychological injury that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological assessments, which reviewed the full medical file, over the applicant's assessment, which lacked a review of the family physician's clinical notes.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment in a motor vehicle collision action, seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's claim on liability.

The motion hinged on witness credibility, with conflicting accounts from the plaintiff, defendant, and a third-party witness.

The court found it could not fairly resolve the central credibility issues on a paper record due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies, the absence of objective evidence (e.g., police investigation, accident reconstruction), and improper limitations on cross-examination of the defendant.

The court also declined to order a mini-trial on liability, citing the potential for bifurcation and increased inefficiency if the plaintiff were to prevail, necessitating a separate damages trial.

Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.

The plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving an American resident driver insured by GEICO.

The plaintiff issued a statement of claim just before the limitation period expired but was unable to locate and serve the American defendant for several years.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for service and for substituted service on the defendant's insurer.

During the reserve period of the motion, the defendant's insurer located the defendant.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had taken reasonable steps to locate the defendant, provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, and the defendant would not suffer non-compensable prejudice.