Dr. Davila

The applicant sought ongoing Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) and a psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated IRBs after 104 weeks, arguing the applicant no longer met the test for entitlement.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant suffered from accident-related physical and psychological impairments, he failed to prove a substantial or complete inability to work as a real estate agent.

The applicant's credibility was significantly undermined by a forensic accounting report revealing he misrepresented his pre- and post-accident income to all assessors, and that he actually earned more in the year following the accident.

Consequently, the claim for ongoing IRBs was dismissed.

However, the Tribunal granted the $2,000 psychological assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's ongoing psychological impairment.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal reviewed the applicant's pre-accident life, noting significant pre-existing health conditions and mobility restrictions.

The Tribunal found that post-accident, the applicant continued to engage in substantially all of the activities she ordinarily engaged in before the accident, such as household chores, shopping, and family vacations, albeit with some modifications and assistance.

Consequently, the application for non-earner benefits was dismissed.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed for simple assault and assault with a weapon, arguing that the probation order was demonstrably unfit due to the omission of a condition prohibiting the respondent from residing in the same condominium building as the victim.

The original sentencing judge declined to impose this condition, citing concerns about the respondent's mental health and a reported suicide risk if his stable living arrangements with his mother were disrupted.

The appeal court, considering fresh evidence from both parties, upheld the original sentence, finding that the judge's conclusion was not unreasonable and did not result in a disposition that was clearly unfit, despite the victim's ongoing fear.