Devan Adam Thomas Marr

Michael Beaudin, severely injured in a dirt bike motocross competition, sought statutory accident benefits from Travelers Insurance.

Travelers denied coverage, arguing the dirt bike was not an "automobile" under the Insurance Act and Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule (SABS) because it was exempt from the Off-Road Vehicles Act (ORVA) insurance requirement.

The core issue on appeal was whether the ORVA exemption for closed course competitions applied only if the competition was sponsored by a motorcycle association.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Divisional Court's decision, holding that the ORVA exemption applies only to sponsored competitions.

Consequently, the dirt bike was not exempt and was considered an "automobile" entitling Beaudin to benefits.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's credibility was undermined by his failure to report a subsequent 2016 accident and pre-existing pain to his expert assessors.

Preferring the respondent's physiatry and psychology experts over the applicant's, the Tribunal concluded the physical injuries were soft tissue strains and there was no diagnosable psychological impairment.

The Tribunal held the injuries were predominantly minor and the disputed treatment plans and assessments were not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied them non-earner benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and interest.

They argued the Tribunal made an error of law or fact regarding their financial dependency on their daughter and violated procedural fairness by not allowing a videoconference hearing.

The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the applicants were merely rearguing their case on the same evidence and that procedural fairness was not violated as they had previously agreed to a written hearing.

The applicants sought statutory accident benefits following their daughter's motor vehicle accident, claiming they were financially dependent on her.

The Tribunal excluded late-filed evidence and found the applicants failed to prove they were more than 50% dependent on their daughter at the time of the accident.

As they did not meet the definition of 'insured persons' under the Schedule, their claims for non-earner benefits and a psychological assessment were dismissed.

The appellant insurer appealed a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision which found that the respondent's dirt bike was an 'automobile' under the Insurance Act, entitling him to statutory accident benefits.

The respondent was catastrophically injured in a motocross competition.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the LAT's interpretation that the dirt bike was not exempt from the Off-Road Vehicles Act because the closed course competition was not sponsored by a motorcycle association.

The court found no error of law in the LAT's application of the Ledcor onus test, the Adams test for automobiles, or its statutory interpretation.

On a statutory appeal from a License Appeal Tribunal reconsideration decision, the insurer challenged a ruling that an injured dirt bike rider was entitled to statutory accident benefits.

The court held there was no legal error in allocating onus to the insurer on the narrow exemption issue and no reversible error in applying the Adams framework.

Interpreting s. 2(1)5 of O. Reg. 863 purposively and contextually, the court agreed that motorcycle-association sponsorship applies to both closed course competitions and rallies, so the exemption did not apply on the record.

Although the reconsideration reasons improperly referenced a document outside the hearing record, the court found no procedural unfairness because that reference did not affect the ultimate analysis.

The appeal and the insurer’s fresh-evidence motion were dismissed, with costs to the respondent.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a physiotherapy treatment plan and the balance of a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the physiotherapy treatment plan was not reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's expert who conducted an in-person examination and concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal also denied the balance of the psychological assessment, preferring the respondent's expert who provided a more detailed and specific description of the time and cost necessary for the assessment.

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

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found the applicant's testimony credible regarding the heavy physical demands of his pre-accident employment as a drywaller and steel framer.

Relying on the applicant's evidence and his treating chronic pain specialist, the adjudicator concluded the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment due to pain, and awarded IRBs.

However, the claims for medical benefits and the cost of an examination were dismissed because the applicant failed to submit the disputed treatment plans into evidence.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed as the insurer reasonably relied on its own medical experts.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits from his insurer.

The insurer denied the benefits based on its assessors' reports.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's testimony regarding his heavy physical labour as a drywaller and his debilitating pain to be credible, supported by his treating chronic pain specialist and the insurer's own kinesiologist.

The Tribunal awarded IRBs of $400 per week.

However, the claims for medical benefits and examination costs were dismissed because the applicant failed to enter the disputed treatment plans into evidence.

The Tribunal declined to award costs or a special award, finding the insurer did not act in bad faith.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to restore a personal injury action to the trial list, discontinue the Family Law Act claims of two siblings, and remove counsel of record for the parents.

The defendants consented to the discontinuance but sought a condition allowing them to examine the siblings for discovery, arguing their evidence was necessary to understand the injured plaintiff's pre-accident condition given his traumatic brain injury and young age at the time of the accident.

The court granted the discontinuance on the condition that the defendants may examine the siblings for discovery, distinguishing prior case law due to the unique circumstances and lack of alternative sources for the information.

The court also granted the order removing counsel of record for the parents.