Dr. Joan Tucker

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents.

The adjudicator held that the applicant was precluded from claiming an income replacement benefit for the second accident because he had elected to receive a non-earner benefit, an election that is final under s. 35(3) of the Schedule.

For the first accident, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in employment to qualify for a post-104 income replacement benefit.

Furthermore, the adjudicator found that the applicant's injuries from both accidents fell within the Minor Injury Guideline, as he failed to demonstrate that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological impairments prevented him from achieving maximum medical recovery within the guideline's limits.

All claims were dismissed.

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

The respondent denied certain medical benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were minor and that she failed to establish chronic pain or an accident-related psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent initially placed the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) but later removed her due to psychological issues.

The applicant claimed entitlement to physiotherapy services, a driver evaluation assessment, and a neuropsychological assessment.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the physiotherapy claim was submitted in an incorrect format without the applicant's signature.

The Tribunal further held that the driver evaluation and neuropsychological assessments were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant was already driving, had undergone multiple prior assessments, and lacked sufficient evidence of a head injury.

The defendant was charged with two counts of being a party to unregistered real estate trading under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act.

Following the prosecution case, the defence raised the issue of the defendant's capacity to conduct his defence due to alleged mental disorder.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant was, on a balance of probabilities, unable to conduct his defence due to mental disorder.

The court found that the defendant was capable of conducting his defence and ordered the suspended proceeding to continue.