Doug Wright

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment (CAT) as a result of a motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to attendant care benefits and a special award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the CAT threshold under Criterion 8, as she only demonstrated moderate, rather than marked, impairments in the spheres of functioning.

The claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed because the expenses were not incurred.

However, the Tribunal granted a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding that the respondent unreasonably delayed and withheld payment of income replacement benefits and treatment plans.

The respondent was ordered to pay an award equal to 25% of the delayed benefits.

The applicant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she was not catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident.

At the hearing, the Tribunal admitted the respondent insurer's expert psychiatric reports but refused to issue a summons to compel the expert's attendance for cross-examination due to non-compliance with procedural rules.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Tribunal's strict application of its rules and refusal to facilitate the cross-examination of a key expert witness on a critical issue breached the applicant's right to procedural fairness.

The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a new hearing.

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

The respondent insurer initially limited the applicant to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) but removed her from the MIG and approved the disputed treatment plans shortly before the hearing.

The Tribunal found that the respondent had sufficient medical evidence, including a psychologist's report, to remove the applicant from the MIG months earlier.

The Tribunal held that the respondent's failure to adjust its position in light of this evidence was stubborn, unyielding, and unreasonable.

The applicant was awarded a special award of 40% of the delayed benefits, totaling $21,114.47, plus interest.

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).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to a partial thickness tear in his left shoulder and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found that a partial tear is considered a strain under the Superintendent's Guideline and falls within the MIG.

The Tribunal also found insufficient medical evidence to establish chronic pain with functional impairment.

As the applicant was held to the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for interest and an award were dismissed.

The applicant, who sustained catastrophic impairments after being struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian, sought statutory accident benefits for alternative housing in Canada and flights from Romania to Toronto.

The applicant had moved to Romania with her parents post-accident but wished to return to Canada for rehabilitation.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claims, finding the applicant failed to substantiate the cost of the requested two-bedroom apartment compared to her pre-accident accommodations, and failed to establish that the flights were essential for her rehabilitation under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought interest on allegedly overdue Income Replacement Benefits (IRB) and an award for unreasonable delay under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide the necessary financial documentation requested by the insurer to calculate the IRB quantum, triggering s. 33(6) of the Schedule, which suspends the insurer's liability to pay.

Consequently, no benefits were overdue, and no interest was payable.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an award, finding the insurer's requests for documentation were reasonable and supported by legitimate accounting reasons.

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

The respondent insurer kept the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) for 13 months after receiving an x-ray report confirming a pelvic fracture, only removing him from the MIG after he applied to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the respondent unreasonably withheld and delayed the payment of benefits by maintaining its MIG position despite medical evidence of a non-minor injury.

The applicant was awarded 25% of the amount of the disputed treatment plans under s. 10 of Reg. 664, totaling $1,534.69.

Both the applicant and the respondent requested reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding statutory accident benefits.

The respondent argued the adjudicator erred in law by not including language about post-accident income deductions in the income replacement benefit order.

The applicant argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness and erred in law by admitting a medical report without the author being available for cross-examination, refusing to issue summonses, and failing to provide adequate reasons regarding catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal dismissed both requests, finding no errors of law, fact, or breaches of procedural fairness that would have changed the outcome.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to psychological issues.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, preferring the respondent's psychiatric expert who concluded her limitations were primarily physical rather than psychological.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's claim for an income replacement benefit for the period up to 104 weeks post-accident, finding she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment on an assembly line.

Claims for attendant care, housekeeping, and physiotherapy were dismissed as the applicant's non-catastrophic funding limits were exhausted.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's request for an award, finding the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable.

The appellant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying a special award on housing benefits.

The insurer had unreasonably delayed and withheld benefits but agreed to pay the full amount claimed shortly before the hearing.

The LAT Adjudicator granted a special award on most benefits but denied it for housing benefits because no report on the value of renovations to the existing home was provided under s. 16(4)(c) of the SABS.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the Adjudicator erred in law by interpreting s. 10 to require an adjudication of the amount of the benefit when the insurer had already agreed to pay the claimed amount.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying her catastrophic impairment designation and a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664.

The Divisional Court found the LAT erred in law by concluding it lacked jurisdiction to make a special award for benefits the insurer had delayed but ultimately agreed to pay before the hearing.

The Court also held the LAT breached procedural fairness by admitting and relying on the report of the insurer's psychiatric expert, who refused to attend the hearing for cross-examination.

The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to a differently constituted tribunal.

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

The applicant passed away intestate before the Tribunal application was filed by his counsel.

The respondent argued the application should be dismissed as no Estate Trustee had been appointed to instruct counsel or commence the proceeding.

The Tribunal agreed, finding that without a legally recognized representative, counsel had no authority to file the application.

The application was dismissed as it was not properly commenced.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired and not entitled to attendant care benefits or a special award.

The applicant argued the initial decision lacked adequate reasons, constituting a breach of procedural fairness and an error of law.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the initial adjudicator's reasons meaningfully grappled with the key issues and evidence, including the competing expert reports on catastrophic impairment and attendant care.

The Tribunal concluded there was no error of law, fact, or breach of procedural fairness that would warrant a reconsideration.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664 for the cost and modification of a new home.

The applicant argued the adjudicator made an error of law or fact by not granting the award despite finding the respondent's denial unreasonable.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no error of law or fact, as the applicant failed to provide the necessary evidence regarding the cost of modifying the pre-accident home to calculate the quantum of the award.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was awarded $677,143, the court determined the costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs based on reconstructed dockets due to a contingency fee agreement, including costs for a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) hearing regarding statutory accident benefits.

The court awarded $302,974.37 in total costs, allowing only a portion of the LAT hearing fees that constituted trial preparation for the tort action, and deducting certain disbursements as standard office overhead.

This motion concerned the duration of an assignment of future collateral income benefits under s. 267.8(12) of the Insurance Act, following a jury award for income loss.

The defendant insurer sought assignment until the plaintiff reached age 65, while the plaintiff argued for a limitation to 10 years, consistent with the jury's assessment of future income loss.

The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, limiting the assignment to the 10-year period determined by the jury, emphasizing the legislative intent to prevent double recovery without under-compensating the injured party.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 (mental or behavioural impairment).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment, as she did not demonstrate a marked impairment in at least three of the four spheres of functioning.

The Tribunal also denied the applicant's claims for attendant care benefits, finding she had not incurred the expenses and did not require the care, as well as various treatment plans and assessments.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits.

Prior to the hearing, the respondent insurer approved the disputed treatment plans for accessible housing, a wheelchair accessible vehicle, and attendant care benefits.

The hearing proceeded on the issue of whether the respondent was liable for a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 for unreasonably withholding or delaying these benefits.

The Tribunal found the respondent's handling of the file was inflexible, imprudent, and unyielding, particularly given the applicant's extreme vulnerability and access to optional benefits.

The Tribunal awarded the maximum 50 per cent award on the cost of the vehicle, the difference in rent, and the late attendant care payment.

The Tribunal also deemed the rental difference incurred for a specific period pursuant to s. 3(8) of the Schedule.

The applicant and respondent both requested a reconsideration of a previous Licence Appeal Tribunal decision.

The applicant argued the Tribunal provided inadequate reasons and erred in finding she was not catastrophically impaired, denying a psychological treatment plan, and denying an award.

The respondent argued the Tribunal erred in awarding post-104-week income replacement benefits.

The Vice-Chair dismissed both requests, finding no errors of law or fact and concluding that the original decision provided adequate reasons and properly weighed the evidence.

This ruling addresses a defendant's motion for leave to call more than three expert witnesses at a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiff opposed, alleging duplication and disadvantage between the defendant's proposed physiatrist and orthopaedic surgeon.

The court granted leave, finding that the proposed five experts, despite some similar observations in their reports, represented distinct specialties and provided unique perspectives necessary for a full adjudication of damages, particularly in a chronic pain case.

The court found no undue duplication or disadvantage to the plaintiff.