Emily Foreman

The applicant sought 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 Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that she failed to establish that pre-existing conditions, psychological impairments, or chronic pain warranted removal from the MIG.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the claim for massage therapy and interest was dismissed.

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 he suffered from chronic pain and had a pre-existing condition that precluded his recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish chronic pain or a pre-existing condition on a balance of probabilities.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 MIG limit.

The application for a treatment plan, an award, interest, and costs was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded partial indemnity costs to the responding plaintiff.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents.

The respondent insurer determined the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied funding for various treatment plans.

The adjudicator found that the applicant suffered psychological injuries, including somatic symptom disorder and PTSD, which removed her from the MIG and its $3,500 funding limit.

However, the adjudicator dismissed the claims for in-home occupational therapy, acupuncture, and a social work assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary for the applicant's accident-related injuries based on the medical evidence.

The applicant sought attendant care, medical, and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's mother did not meet the requirements for a professional service provider and that the medical benefits fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the mother was not acting in the course of her employment as a Health Care Aide and did not sustain an economic loss.

The Tribunal also found the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, as there was a lack of timely, objective medical evidence supporting the claims.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the applicant's injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and that six disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The respondent argued the Tribunal made significant errors of law by failing to consider whether the injuries were 'predominately' minor, by ruling in the applicant's favour without submissions on the reasonable and necessary test, and by failing to cite the respondent's case law.

The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal had properly weighed the medical evidence, correctly concluded the applicant sustained a mild traumatic brain injury that was not predominately minor, and was not required to explicitly cite every piece of case law considered.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans and income replacement benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a mild traumatic brain injury and psychological impairments, removing him from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved all six disputed treatment plans as reasonable and necessary.

Furthermore, the Tribunal awarded income replacement benefits, finding the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a produce clerk.

The applicant's claim for a special award for unreasonable delay was dismissed due to his own delays in providing documentation.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $1,836.00 for a physiotherapy treatment plan following a 2011 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery.

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence, which was over four years old, insufficient to demonstrate an ongoing impairment.

Preferring the respondent's more recent insurer examination report, the Tribunal concluded the treatment plan was neither reasonable nor necessary and dismissed the application.

The minor applicants were severely injured in a motor vehicle accident and required attendant care from their mother.

The parties agreed on the quantum of attendant care benefits but disputed whether the expenses were 'incurred' under s. 3(7)(e)(iii)B of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The arbitrator found that the mother sustained an economic loss because she had to forego a cooperative job placement as a medical records administrator and accept a less remunerative placement to care for her children, while also facing the burden of repaying her student loans.

The arbitrator concluded the attendant care claims were incurred and ordered the insurer to pay the agreed amounts.

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

After the parties were unable to resolve their disputes through mediation, the applicant applied for arbitration.

The applicant later withdrew the application for arbitration.

The insurer sought its expenses for preparing for the arbitration and for the expense hearing.

The arbitrator found that the applicant waited too long to withdraw the application and ordered the applicant to pay $1,300 in expenses to the insurer for the arbitration preparation.

The parties were ordered to bear their own costs for the expense hearing.

The plaintiff, a 16-year-old driver, was injured in a single-vehicle accident after failing to stop at a stop sign at a rural intersection and crashing into a concrete abutment.

The plaintiff had consumed alcohol prior to the crash.

The plaintiff sued the municipality, alleging the intersection was in a state of non-repair because it lacked warning signs for a change in road alignment (an 'offset' intersection).

The court found that the intersection posed a hidden hazard and required a warning sign in addition to the stop sign.

The court apportioned liability 50% to the municipality for failure to warn and 50% to the plaintiff for failing to stop and driving after consuming alcohol.

The respondent was seriously injured when his motorcycle struck a freight train at a rural railway crossing at night.

The crossing had only a passive warning system.

The trial judge found the appellant railway company 75% negligent for failing to conduct nighttime inspections and failing to implement additional safety measures, and the respondent 25% contributorily negligent due to excessive speed and impairment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the railway company's appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on standard of care, causation, and contributory negligence.