Ali Habash

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 (mental and behavioural impairments).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a marked impairment in three spheres of functioning (Activities of Daily Living, Social Functioning, and Adaptation) and was therefore catastrophically impaired.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits of $3,233.31 per month but dismissed the applicant's claims for various treatment plans, assessments, and a special award, finding insufficient evidence to support those claims.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 due to mental and behavioral disorders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing irritable bowel syndrome and depression, along with the loss of family members, were the primary causes of her impairments.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, concluding the applicant suffered only moderate (Class 3) impairments in activities of daily living, social functioning, and concentration, persistence, and pace.

As the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment and had exhausted her $65,000 non-catastrophic limits, all claims for disputed treatment plans and expenses were dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8 of the Schedule, concluding he suffered marked impairments in social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation due to a mental and behavioural disorder.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychiatrist over the respondent's assessor, who failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal approved the majority of the disputed treatment plans, including occupational therapy, chiropractic services, physiotherapy, and a catastrophic assessment, but denied a pharmacotherapy plan for medical cannabis as the requested amount exceeded the applicant's stated needs.

The applicant, an Uber driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and claimed entitlement to post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The insurer terminated IRBs on the basis that the applicant could return to suitable employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, due to the synergistic impact of his physical injuries and psychological impairments, including chronic pain and depression.

The Tribunal ordered ongoing IRBs at $200 per week plus interest, but dismissed the applicant's claims for a special award and costs, finding the insurer's conduct was not unreasonable or in bad faith.