Dr. Amena Syed

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a non-earner benefit, neurobiofeedback, and physiotherapy.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the threshold for a non-earner benefit, as his psychological impairments did not continuously prevent him from engaging in substantially all of his pre-accident activities.

The Tribunal granted the claim for neurobiofeedback, finding it reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's psychological distress and vehicular anxiety.

The claims for physiotherapy were dismissed, as the applicant had reached maximal medical recovery from a physical standpoint.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer terminated IRBs after 104 weeks, arguing the applicant did not meet the test for complete inability to work.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant failed to prove physical impairment, he successfully established that his psychological impairments, caused by the accident, rendered him completely unable to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited.

The Tribunal awarded IRBs from November 15, 2015, ongoing, with interest.

The respondent's request for costs was denied.

The applicant, a cyclist who was struck by a car door, sought statutory accident benefits for psychological services to address her fear of cycling.

The insurer denied the treatment plan, arguing it was not reasonable and necessary and had not been incurred.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's self-reporting compelling and preferred the evidence of her psychologist over the insurer's expert.

The Tribunal held that the treatment plan was reasonable, necessary, and incurred, ordering the insurer to pay the benefit of $1,196.88 plus interest.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought accident benefits.

The respondent insurer deemed the injuries to fall within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied a $2,200 psychological assessment.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological impairments, including adjustment disorder and somatic symptom disorder, fell outside the definition of a minor injury.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the insurer's assessor, noting the insurer's assessor discounted moderate impairment test results without reasonable explanation.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the psychological assessment with interest, but declined to order an award for unreasonably withheld payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for chiropractic treatment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The respondent insurer initially denied the benefits under the Minor Injury Guideline, but later conceded the applicant's injuries were non-minor based on a psychological assessment.

The applicant argued that pre-existing lower back pain and chronic pain syndrome necessitated further chiropractic care.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence to support the treatment plans, noting that her own treating physicians recommended physiotherapy rather than chiropractic treatment.

The application for medical benefits, interest, and costs was dismissed.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $4,124.88 for chiropractic services following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer initially denied the benefit under the Minor Injury Guideline, but later conceded the applicant was removed from the guideline based on a psychological assessment.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence to prove the chiropractic treatment was reasonable and necessary, noting that her own treating physicians recommended physiotherapy rather than chiropractic care.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant's request for costs based on the insurer's alleged bad faith was denied.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physical therapy and a psychological assessment.

The insurer denied the physical therapy plans, arguing the applicant's impairments were pre-existing and fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's orthopaedic surgeon, finding the accident exacerbated pre-existing degenerative conditions in the low back and right knee, warranting further physical therapy outside the Minor Injury Guideline.

Three of the four physical therapy plans were approved, while one was denied because it was retroactively altered.

The arbitrator also denied the unapproved balance for a psychological assessment, finding the services were provided by an unregulated counsellor and billed improperly.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue benefits, and no costs were ordered.

The applicant, injured in a motor vehicle accident, sought payment for two sets of assistive devices and a psychological assessment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claims for assistive devices, finding the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary given her self-reported improvement and ability to perform daily tasks.

However, the Tribunal granted the request for a psychological assessment, noting the applicant's ongoing residual symptoms of anxiety and depressed mood, and awarded corresponding interest.

Both parties' requests for costs were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and assessment costs outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the applicant's subjective reports of impairment inconsistent with surveillance footage and objective medical evidence.

Preferring the respondent's expert assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life and that her injuries were predominantly minor.

Consequently, the claims for a non-earner benefit, treatment plans outside the MIG, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The Crown alleged the accused drove while impaired after consuming alcohol and subsequently crashed her vehicle into a ditch.

The defence raised Charter violations regarding the right to counsel, arguing the accused did not understand her rights and that the police failed to adequately explain them or inform her of duty counsel availability.

The court found a breach of section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and excluded the breath test evidence.

On the impairment charge, the court found the Crown had not proven impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the accused's cognitive disability from a prior head injury and alternative explanations for observed symptoms.