Drew Higginbotham

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

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to chronic pain, a pre-existing rotoscoliosis condition, concussion symptoms, and psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence to establish any of these conditions warranted removal from the MIG.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not assessed, and the application was dismissed.

This appeal concerns the interpretation of "involved in the incident" under section 268(2) of the Insurance Act, which dictates liability for statutory accident benefits.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court's decision that an arbitrator erred in law by introducing a causation requirement into the test for "involvement" in a priority dispute between an insured snowmobile's insurer (Gore Mutual) and the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund.

The Court held that temporal, spatial, and participatory factors were sufficient to establish involvement, without requiring a direct causal link to the injuries.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the partial denial of two treatment plans for psychological services and assistive devices.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the disputed interpretation and transportation expenses for psychological services, as they were not shown to be reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal partially approved the assistive devices plan, granting a neck massager but denying the remaining items.

The applicant's request for a special award was dismissed, as the respondent's conduct did not amount to unreasonably withholding benefits.

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

The respondent denied several benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and were subject to the $3,500 coverage limit.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were sprains and strains, which are defined as minor injuries.

The Tribunal preferred the psychological evidence indicating the applicant's psychological symptoms were subclinical and did not impair her function, supported by contemporaneous counselling records showing she maintained a normal, active lifestyle.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that chronic pain removed the applicant from the minor injury limit, as there was no evidence of functional impairment.

Consequently, the claims for attendant care, treatment plans, and a non-earner benefit were dismissed.

The appellant Minister appealed an arbitrator's decision holding the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund liable to pay statutory accident benefits to a passenger injured in a snowmobile accident.

The passenger was riding on an uninsured snowmobile that crashed into a tree, followed 0.6 seconds later by an insured snowmobile crashing into the same tree.

The arbitrator found the insured snowmobile was not 'involved in the incident' because it did not cause or contribute to the injuries.

The Superior Court allowed the appeal, holding that the arbitrator erred in law by engrafting a causation requirement onto the plain meaning of 'involved in the incident' under s. 268(2)(1)(iii) of the Insurance Act.

The applicant, a Chinese citizen visiting Ontario, was struck by an unidentified vehicle as a pedestrian and sought statutory accident benefits from the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Fund (MVACF).

The respondent denied the claim on the basis that the applicant was not ordinarily resident in Ontario at the time of the accident, as required by section 25 of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act.

The Tribunal applied the Thomson residency test and found that the applicant's stay in Ontario was not of a sufficiently permanent nature to establish ordinary residence.

The applicant was in Ontario on a visitor visa, had no Canadian income or bank account, and returned to China shortly after completing an English language course.

The application for benefits was dismissed.