Dr. Murray

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to Non-Earner Benefits (NEBs) and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting he had resumed working as an Uber driver.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to warrant removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's medical assessments which found no significant functional or psychological impairments.

The application was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied claims for non-earner benefits and various medical, psychological, and physiotherapy treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting she returned to full-time work and her self-reporting was inconsistent.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant's physical injuries fell within the MIG and rejected her claim of a psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's expert evidence which demonstrated significant symptom exaggeration and failed validity testing.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the treatment plans and claim for interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for psychological and chiropractic treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain syndrome, and an adjustment disorder warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support diagnoses of chronic pain or a psychological injury that would preclude recovery within the MIG, noting the applicant's return to full-time work.

The Tribunal concluded the injuries were minor and dismissed the claims for treatment plans and interest.

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

The respondent denied various medical benefits and examination costs on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor physical injuries, such as uncomplicated myofascial strains and contusions.

The applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from a concussion, chronic pain, or psychological impairments that would remove him from the MIG.

As the MIG limit was already exhausted, the claims for additional medical benefits and examination costs were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and medical benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to ongoing income replacement benefits or attendant care benefits, as the medical evidence did not support a substantial inability to perform essential tasks or a need for ongoing care.

The Tribunal also denied requests for psychological and chronic pain assessments.

However, the Tribunal found that orthotic devices were reasonable and necessary, ordering the respondent to pay for them.

Claims for an award and costs were dismissed.

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

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's soft tissue injuries were minor, she suffered from a chronic pain condition that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal also held the insurer liable to pay for four disputed treatment plans because it failed to provide proper notice under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

However, the applicant's claims for non-earner benefits and visitor expenses were dismissed for lack of evidence.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for a driver anxiety assessment and a hydrotherapy program following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that while the insurer's initial denial of the driver anxiety assessment was defective for failing to provide medical reasons, the defect was cured by a subsequent letter.

Because the applicant had not incurred the expense during the defective notice period, the insurer was not obligated to pay.

The Tribunal further held that neither the driver anxiety assessment nor the hydrotherapy program were reasonable and necessary, as the medical evidence did not support their effectiveness.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to medical benefits and income replacement benefits.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant was self-employed with no net profits and that her injuries did not warrant further treatment.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility and accepted the insurer's expert evidence that her physical injuries had plateaued and her psychological issues were unrelated to the accident.

The arbitrator also determined the applicant was self-employed and had no profits, resulting in an income replacement benefit calculation of zero.

The application was dismissed, and the insurer was awarded its expenses.

A child protection matter where the child suffered severe injuries including liver lacerations and rib fractures of unexplained origin.

The Children’s Aid Society initially commenced a protection application but later sought to withdraw it after concluding the child was not in need of protection.

Investigations indicated the injuries likely occurred within 24 hours prior to hospital admission, but no criminal charges were laid and concerns arose regarding the child’s daycare provider.

The Society reported positive observations of the parents’ caregiving and entered into a three‑month Voluntary Service Agreement permitting supervision and services.

The court found the decision to withdraw the protection application reasonable and accepted the withdrawal.