Dr. Amy Moustgaard

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident in March 2019.

The respondent denied income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a physiotherapy treatment plan.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and whiplash, causing a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her self-employment for the first 104 weeks.

However, this inability ceased when she applied for the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) in March 2020, attesting she was ready and able to work.

The Tribunal denied IRBs beyond the 104-week mark, finding no complete inability to engage in any employment.

The claim for physiotherapy services was dismissed as the applicant failed to demonstrate the treatment was reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on the overdue IRB payments.

The applicant, who suffered a catastrophic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, sought court approval of a $1,450,000 settlement of her Statutory Accident Benefits (SABS) claim.

The court declined to approve the settlement, finding the evidence insufficient to establish that the proposed discount from the full value of her future care needs was in her best interests.

The court also identified deficiencies in the evidence regarding the applicant's capacity to manage property and the proposed allocation of settlement funds.

The application was adjourned to a case conference to address next steps, including procedural issues regarding corporate representation and affidavit evidence.

The plaintiff, by her litigation guardian, sought court approval of a settlement with Economical Mutual Insurance Company, which involved dismissing the bad faith claim against Economical without costs.

The motion also sought a sealing order for the motion materials and approval of counsel's disbursements.

The court approved the settlement and the majority of the disbursements, finding the settlement reasonable and in the plaintiff's best interests given the risks of litigation.

However, the request for a sealing order was dismissed on procedural grounds, with leave for the plaintiff to re-bring it in open court.