Dr. Alex Luczak

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, physiotherapy, medical cannabis, an emotional support dog, and home modifications.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to attendant care benefits, physiotherapy, or home modifications, as they were not reasonable and necessary based on the medical evidence.

However, the Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to reimbursement for incurred medical cannabis expenses to manage her chronic pain syndrome, and to an emotional support dog to address her accident-related anxiety, as she had already attempted frontline treatments.

The Tribunal awarded interest on the overdue payments but declined to grant an award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding no unreasonable delay by the insurer.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's psychological impairments pre-dated the accident.

The Tribunal found that the accident exacerbated the applicant's pre-existing condition, resulting in a marked class 4 impairment in her adaption to the workplace.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was catastrophically impaired and awarded attendant care benefits of $931.57 per month, along with partial entitlement to claimed medical, rehabilitation, and examination expenses.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant met the test for a pre-104 week IRB, as her physical and psychological impairments caused a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as an educational assistant.

However, the claim for a post-104 week IRB was dismissed.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited, noting her volunteer work in a retail setting, her training as a wedding planner, and medical evidence indicating improvement in her condition.

Claims for a special award were dismissed, but interest was awarded on overdue pre-104 week benefits.

The insurer appealed an Arbitrator's decision finding the insured catastrophically impaired, entitled to post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs), and awarding a special award of 35% for unreasonably withholding benefits.

The insurer argued the Arbitrator reversed the onus of proof and failed to properly consider causation, specifically the insured's pre-existing psychological issues stemming from childhood abuse.

The Director's Delegate dismissed the appeal, finding the Arbitrator properly applied the 'but for' test, correctly weighed the medical evidence, and reasonably concluded the insurer's reliance on flawed and inconclusive reports justified the special award.

The Applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident in November 2010 and sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to psychological issues.

The Insurer denied the claim, arguing the Applicant's mental health issues were due to a pre-existing bi-polar disorder and that she was malingering.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant suffered a marked impairment in the area of adaptation and that the accident materially contributed to her current state of mental health.

The Arbitrator preferred the evidence of the Applicant's experts and noted the Insurer's aggressive tactics in summonsing witnesses.

The Arbitrator concluded the Applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of the accident.

A 17.5-year-old young person pleaded guilty to second-degree murder.

The court was tasked with determining whether to impose an adult or youth sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

The Crown sought an adult sentence of life imprisonment, while the defence argued for a youth sentence comprising time served and conditional supervision.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, the young person's background (including a toxic relationship with the victim, substance abuse, and the impact of her mother's death), and her significant rehabilitative progress while in custody.

Professional assessments unanimously recommended a youth sentence, citing the young person's developmental vulnerability and the potential negative impact of an adult correctional facility.

Applying the YCJA's principles of accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration, the court found that a youth sentence of sufficient length would hold the young person accountable.

Consequently, the Crown's application for an adult sentence was dismissed, and a youth sentence of seven years was imposed, consisting of four years in custody (crediting three years for pre-sentencing detention plus one additional year) followed by three years of conditional supervision, along with a weapons prohibition order.