Detective Sergeant Matt Sutherland

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including attendant care benefits and funding for a multidisciplinary catastrophic impairment assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the attendant care benefits were reasonable and necessary, as insurer's examinations indicated she had returned to her pre-accident functional abilities.

The Tribunal also denied the catastrophic impairment assessment treatment plan, finding insufficient medical evidence to support that it was reasonably possible the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident while visiting Canada, sought $21,357.00 for catastrophic impairment assessments after his accident benefits were exhausted.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plan, relying on independent medical examinations that found no objective impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's occupational therapy evidence and medical records established a reasonable basis to investigate a catastrophic impairment, noting his ongoing physical and psychological limitations.

The Tribunal partially approved the treatment plan for $12,400.00, allowing the physiatry, neurology, occupational therapy, and one psychiatry assessment, but denied duplicative assessments and file reviews.

The claim for an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found he was not catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The applicant argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness by providing inadequate reasons, displaying bias, and failing to address production order breaches, and that the adjudicator made errors of law and fact in assessing his psychological and social functioning impairments.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding the adjudicator provided clear and adequate reasons, no reasonable apprehension of bias was established, and the adjudicator's weighing of the expert evidence and application of the legal test for marked impairment were reasonable and free of error.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Schedule and claimed entitlement to a post-104 income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment, as he did not demonstrate a marked impairment in at least two of the four functional domains, specifically finding his social functioning was compatible with some useful functioning.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's claim for a post-104 IRB, finding that the combination of his physical, psychological, cognitive, and visual impairments resulted in a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

Interest was awarded on the overdue IRB payments.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders) and entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, placing limited weight on her experts due to her inconsistent self-reporting and failure to account for intervening events.

The Tribunal denied the disputed treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, psychological services, and bathroom renovations, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal granted the cost of prescribed cannabis oil, noting that a treatment plan was not required for expenses under $250, and ordered a 35% award against the respondent for unreasonably withholding payment for the cannabis oil.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied several treatment plans, including requests for physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and various assistive devices such as a Kubota tractor, a lawn mower, and car repair tools.

As a preliminary issue, the adjudicator found the applicant was barred from disputing the treatment plan for the Kubota tractor under s. 55(1)2 of the Schedule because he failed to attend two reasonably necessary s. 44 insurer's examinations.

On the substantive issues, the adjudicator approved the physiotherapy treatment plan, finding it reasonable and necessary for pain relief despite the applicant's condition having plateaued.

The adjudicator also partially approved treatment plans for occupational therapy preparation time and knipex pliers to assist with car repairs.

The remaining claims for a mattress, a vehicle lift, an adjustable rolling creeper, and a John Deere lawn mower were dismissed for lack of sufficient medical evidence establishing their necessity.

The accused, an adult firefighter, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against the 14-year-old daughter of a fellow firefighter.

The Crown relied on the complainant's testimony and electronic communications between the parties.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, particularly when contrasted with the testimony of her friend, an independent witness.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that while the accused's denials were not entirely credible, the totality of the evidence left a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 1998, sustaining a traumatic brain injury.

She applied for arbitration after a dispute with her insurer over the quantum of attendant care benefits.

The applicant claimed she required 24-hour care due to cognitive impairments and safety concerns, while the insurer argued she only required limited assistance.

The arbitrator found that while the applicant suffered from executive functioning impairments caused or exacerbated by the accident, she did not require around-the-clock care.

The arbitrator accepted the insurer's occupational therapist's assessment, awarding attendant care benefits of $649.52 per month, plus interest on overdue payments.

Both parties appealed an arbitration order regarding statutory accident benefits following a snowmobile accident.

The claimant, who lived on an island and ran a contracting business, sought housing expenses, rehabilitation benefits for a new boat and snowmobile, and a recalculation of his Income Replacement Benefits (IRBs) to include business losses above the $400 weekly maximum.

The Director of Arbitrations upheld the denial of housing expenses, finding they were covered by a prior settlement release.

The Director also upheld the award for the boat and snowmobile, finding sufficient evidence that they were necessary to maintain the claimant's pre-accident lifestyle.

However, the Director allowed the claimant's appeal regarding IRBs, ruling that under the plain meaning of sections 6 and 7 of the SABS-1996, the $400 maximum is applied before adding 80 per cent of post-accident business losses, meaning the claimant's IRBs could exceed $400 per week.

The applicant was injured in a snowmobile accident and sought statutory accident benefits from his insurer.

He claimed housing expenses for winter accommodation on the mainland, a new boat and snowmobile as rehabilitation benefits, and income replacement benefits exceeding the $400 weekly maximum based on business losses.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for housing expenses, finding it was covered by a prior settlement regarding relocation.

The arbitrator granted the claim for a new boat and snowmobile, accepting medical evidence that they were necessary to reduce impact on the applicant's back and allow him to maintain his business.

The arbitrator dismissed the claim for enhanced income replacement benefits, ruling that the statutory scheme caps benefits at $400 and compensates for actual income loss, not lost economic opportunity or potential profits.