Emily Siu

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming entitlement to a chiropractic treatment plan and an occupational therapy in-home assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant's medical records did not support consistent complaints of ongoing pain, and he failed to produce updated clinical notes and records as ordered.

The adjudicator accepted the respondent's independent medical examination, which concluded the applicant had reached maximum medical improvement with no objective signs of injury.

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

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 sought removal from the MIG based on chronic pain and a psychological condition but provided no medical evidence beyond the treatment plans themselves.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal also found the respondent's denial letters complied with s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed, and no interest or award was granted.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to chiropractic treatment and a psychological assessment outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that chronic pain and a psychological condition warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a chronic pain diagnosis caused by the subject accident.

Furthermore, the Tribunal accepted evidence that the applicant's psychological issues were caused by a subsequent accident.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, and denied claims for an award and interest.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to psychological impairments and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proof, noting a lack of corroborating clinical records from treating physicians to support the psychological diagnosis.

Relying on the respondent's insurer examinations, the Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, which were denied by the respondent insurer on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that chronic pain, psychological impairments, and extensive dental injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the accident was a necessary cause of his dental impairments or his left ankle impairment.

While the accident was a necessary cause of his right ankle, foot, and other soft tissue injuries, the applicant did not provide sufficient medical evidence of chronic pain or psychological impairment to warrant removal from the MIG.

The application for the disputed treatment plans and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing her request for reconsideration.

Her original human rights application was dismissed as abandoned after she failed to respond to a Notice of Intent to Dismiss regarding a jurisdictional issue.

The Divisional Court applied the Vavilov framework and found the adjudicator's reconsideration decision was reasonable, internally coherent, and entitled to a high degree of deference.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.