Andrew Philips

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), attendant care services, and medical/rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving entitlement to any of the claimed benefits.

Specifically, the applicant did not provide compelling medical evidence to establish a substantial or complete inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for attendant care and treatment plans due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The respondent's request for costs was denied, as the applicant's conduct was not found to be unreasonable, frivolous, vexatious, or in bad faith.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal applied the Heath framework and found that the applicant had resumed substantially all pre-accident activities, including graduating from his MBA program and managing activities of daily living independently.

The application was dismissed as the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits and a catastrophic impairment (CAT) designation following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the accident contributed to the applicant's psychological impairment, the applicant's self-reports were not credible due to significant inconsistencies regarding his pre-accident health and functional status.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a marked impairment in three spheres of functioning and therefore did not meet the CAT threshold.

All claims for income replacement benefits, attendant care, and medical benefits were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable, necessary, or incurred.