D. March

The appellant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident, appealed and sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her catastrophic impairment benefits.

The Divisional Court found that while there was no breach of procedural fairness, the Adjudicator's findings regarding the appellant's whole person impairment under Criterion 6 of the AMA Guides were unreasonable.

Specifically, the Adjudicator unreasonably dismissed evidence of double vision, peripheral neuropathy, and medication side effects.

The court quashed the decision and remitted the matter to the LAT for a new hearing before a different adjudicator.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his request for a catastrophic impairment designation, income replacement benefits, and physiotherapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the Vice-Chair erred by failing to include a contingency for future surgery in his whole person impairment rating and by ignoring expert evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that whole person impairment is assessed based on the claimant's condition at the time of the hearing without contingencies for future deterioration or surgery.

Following an arbitration decision regarding statutory accident benefits, both parties applied for their expenses.

The Insurer's application was filed outside the 30-day time limit under Rule 79.1 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, but the arbitrator exercised discretion to waive the time limit.

The arbitrator found that the Applicant was significantly successful in the main proceeding and that the Insurer's settlement offers were unreasonable.

Consequently, the Insurer was not entitled to its expenses.

The Applicant was awarded his expenses, including legal fees, disbursements, and expert witness fees, totaling $46,918.59.