Emily Schatzker

The Applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the Applicant was barred from disputing several treatment plans because she failed to apply within the two-year limitation period, noting the insurer's denials were compliant with the requirements in Smith v. Co-operators.

For the remaining treatment plans, the Tribunal dismissed the claims, finding the Applicant failed to provide contemporaneous medical evidence demonstrating that the proposed multidisciplinary, neurological, physiotherapy, and psychological treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing he should be removed from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and a psychological condition.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence of accident-related chronic pain with functional impairment, noting the applicant's medical records primarily documented non-accident-related concerns.

The Tribunal also placed little weight on a psychological pre-screen report that relied on self-reporting without validity measures.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the $3,500 MIG limit, rendering the disputed treatment plans moot.

The applicant sought entitlement to various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including multiple treatment plans for physiotherapy, psychological, optometric, and chiropractic services, as well as attendant care benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving that the majority of the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal granted entitlement only to 16 instances of travel costs for a massage therapist, noting the applicant's inability to attend in-facility treatment at the time.

The claims for attendant care benefits and other treatment plans were dismissed.

The applicant was awarded interest on the overdue travel costs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming severe physical and psychological impairments.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to demonstrate his injuries, including alleged psychological impairments and concussion symptoms, fell outside the MIG.

The tribunal also dismissed the claim for non-earner benefits, as the applicant provided no evidence of a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

All claims for medical benefits, transportation expenses, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The applicant towing company sought a declaration that it was entitled to charge $70.80 per day for vehicle storage based on a contract with the regional police.

The respondent insurer argued the rate was capped at $60 per day by a municipal by-law.

The court found that the by-law clearly capped storage rates and did not contain an exception for police contracts.

The court also rejected the applicant's argument that the by-law was inconsistent with the Highway Traffic Act, finding no paramountcy issue.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought payment for a chiropractic treatment plan under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent partially approved the plan but denied the remaining $399.52.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the disputed amount was reasonable and necessary, noting a lack of evidence showing significant improvement from prior chiropractic treatment and the applicant's own report to an orthopaedic surgeon that the treatment was unsuccessful.

The application was dismissed and no interest was awarded.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant's medical evidence insufficient, giving no weight to a telephone-only orthopaedic assessment and negligible weight to a psychological assessment that contradicted its own psychometric testing.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries remained within the MIG, dismissing the claims for disputed treatment plans, interest, and a special award.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for various psychological and physical treatment plans.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit was exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to discharge his burden to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychological expert over the applicant's expert, noting the applicant's expert failed to address contradictory medical records.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans were not payable.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The Respondent denied the benefits, arguing the Applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to prove she suffered from an accident-related psychological injury or chronic pain condition that would remove her from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans were denied as they fell outside the MIG limit.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for income replacement benefits, drawing an adverse inference from the Applicant's failure to produce her employment and employment insurance files.

Claims for interest and a section 10 award were also dismissed.

The applicant, a minor, sought accident benefits following a 2022 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment plans and requested an insurer's examination (IE) with a pediatric neurologist after receiving a report linking the applicant's symptoms to the accident.

The applicant failed to attend the scheduled IE, citing travel to India, and did not provide a reasonable explanation or cooperate in rescheduling.

The Tribunal found the IE request was reasonably necessary and timely.

Consequently, the applicant was barred from proceeding with the application under section 55(1)2 of the Schedule, and the application was dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that her injuries fell outside the MIG.

The medical evidence, including clinical notes and a psychological pre-screen report, was insufficient to establish chronic pain or a psychological impairment.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the limits were exhausted, the claims for a psychological assessment, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied several treatment plans 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 and a psychological condition.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's chronic pain and psychological issues pre-dated the accident and were not substantially worsened by it.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's physiatry assessment over the applicant's occupational therapy assessment, noting methodological flaws in the latter.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were predominantly minor, dismissed the claims for the treatment plans, and denied the claim for an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant was statute-barred for submitting her application seven months late and that her injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant had a reasonable explanation for the delay due to documented cognitive and psychological challenges.

However, on the substantive issues, the Tribunal concluded the applicant failed to establish that her chronic pain and psychological impairments were caused by the accident rather than pre-existing conditions.

The application for removal from the MIG, non-earner benefits, and treatment plans was dismissed.

The applicant sought entitlement to multiple treatment plans for chiropractic, occupational therapy, social rehabilitation counselling, speech-language pathology, and vision services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the majority of the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, relying heavily on insurer examination reports and surveillance evidence showing the applicant's functional independence.

The Tribunal granted entitlement only for the incurred cost of a mattress.

The applicant's claim for a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was dismissed, as the insurer's reliance on medical assessments and partial approvals did not constitute unreasonable conduct.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she remained within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred by failing to explicitly address key evidence of her functional limitations, specifically an in-home occupational therapy assessment report.

The Vice-Chair agreed, finding that the failure to address this central evidence regarding chronic pain and functional limitations constituted an error of fact or law that likely impacted the outcome.

The original decision was cancelled and the matter was remitted for a rehearing before a new adjudicator based on the existing written record.

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 Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish chronic pain with functional impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and was therefore not entitled to a non-earner benefit.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable, and the application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) reconsideration decision that applied the doctrine of issue estoppel to bar his claim for a catastrophic impairment assessment relating to physical and chronic pain injuries.

The appellant argued the initial LAT decision did not make a final finding on causation for those injuries.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the initial LAT adjudicator had clearly and finally determined that the appellant's physical and chronic pain impairments were not caused by the accident.

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

The respondent denied benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's accident-related psychological impairments, including a diagnosis of PTSD by his family physician, warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal approved the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy and a psychological assessment, as well as medication expenses, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, the applicant's claim for income replacement benefits was dismissed due to non-compliance with s. 33 requests for financial information and evidence indicating he had returned to work.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments but denied a special award under s. 10 of Reg. 664.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing for removal from the MIG based on psychological impairment and chronic pain.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support either a psychological injury or chronic pain condition resulting from the accident.

As the applicant remained within the MIG and the funding limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not considered.

The claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

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

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to establish chronic pain with a functional limitation.

Furthermore, the Tribunal relied on a section 44 psychological assessment to conclude that the applicant's pre-existing psychological condition did not prevent her from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was held to the MIG.