Dr. Lubbers

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services and a social work assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the chiropractic treatment plans reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's specialists over the respondent's general physicians.

The claim for a social work assessment was dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The Tribunal also granted an award of 5% under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding that the respondent unreasonably delayed the approval and payment of benefits despite receiving corroborative medical evidence.

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

The insurer denied the treatment plans based on insurer examinations.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's ongoing reports of pain and functional limitations, supported by medical records, established that the disputed physiotherapy treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the disputed benefits along with interest on the overdue amounts.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders, non-earner benefits, and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had significant pre-existing conditions from a 2009 workplace injury and failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the motor vehicle accident was a necessary cause of his psychological impairments.

Consequently, the catastrophic impairment claim and non-earner benefits were denied.

However, the Tribunal approved treatment plans for a chronic pain program, an attendant care assessment, and a driving reintegration assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary to address exacerbations of physical pain and new driving anxiety caused by the accident.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits and an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The respondent denied the benefits, placing the applicant in the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a psychological impairment or chronic pain that would remove him from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the psychological assessment was not payable.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for an IRB, finding the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from a psychological impairment (adjustment disorder) that removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for three chiropractic treatment plans, finding them reasonable and necessary to alleviate ongoing pain.

One psychological treatment plan was partially approved, while others and a cognitive assessment were denied.

Interest was awarded on the overdue payments.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The insurer denied payment, arguing the injuries were predominantly minor and subject to the $3,500 treatment limit under the Minor Injury Guideline, or alternatively, that the injuries were caused by a subsequent accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from a concussion with post-concussive symptoms caused by the first accident, which is not a predominantly minor injury.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for a driving rehabilitation assessment and an occupational therapy assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

The applicant was awarded interest on overdue payments but denied an award for unreasonable denial, as the insurer's belief regarding the cause of the injuries was reasonable.

The plaintiff, a high school student, sued her coach, principal, and school board for negligence after sustaining a knee injury during track and field practice.

The court found that the defendants met the standard of care of a careful and prudent parent, and that the plaintiff's current physical condition and occupational aspirations were not causally related to the injury.

The plaintiff's claim was dismissed.

The moving party sought an order validating late service of a statement of claim and extending time for service after the claim was served more than two years after issuance and beyond the six‑month service period under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court considered the factors governing extensions of time and validation of service, including length of delay, explanation for delay, and prejudice to the responding party.

The claim had been issued after the expiry of the limitation period and the moving party failed to provide a coherent explanation for the delay or evidence supporting discoverability.

The court found extensive and unexplained delays attributable to counsel, inadequate efforts to locate and serve the defendant, and significant prejudice to the defence including loss of opportunities for surveillance, medical assessments, and vocational evaluation.

The motion to validate service and extend time was dismissed.