Dr. Oren Gozlan

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit (NEB) and several treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she continued to perform most of her pre-accident activities, albeit with some pain and modifications.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's assessors over the applicant's assessors, noting the latter failed to review medical records or diagnostic imaging.

The Tribunal also found the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary, and the insurer's denial notices were compliant with the Schedule.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought $1,866.95 for a psychological treatment plan (OCF-18) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the claim based on section 44 assessment reports.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating psychologist over the insurer's assessors, whose reports were either outdated or lacked necessary psychological testing.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the treatment plan with interest, but dismissed the applicant's claim for a section 10 award, finding the insurer's reliance on its assessors was not unreasonable.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the insurer's notices denying two treatment plans for physiotherapy, massage therapy, and assistive devices were deficient under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, rendering them payable.

However, a separate treatment plan for assistive devices was denied as a duplication of services.

The Tribunal also denied the disputed balance of a psychological treatment plan and a proposed orthopaedic assessment, finding the applicant failed to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

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

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that her pre-existing lymphadenopathy, psychological impairments, and chronic pain took her out of the MIG.

The Tribunal found no evidence that the pre-existing condition prevented maximal recovery.

It also found that the applicant's psychological symptoms did not constitute a severe or extreme impairment.

Finally, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's chronic pain evidence, placing little weight on her expert's report due to recent disciplinary findings against him, and preferred the respondent's medical assessment.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant sought leave under Rule 39.02(2) to file additional evidence (articles, text messages, emails) after cross-examination, in response to the plaintiff's allegations of psychological abuse affecting the limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the evidence largely irrelevant, of slight probative value, and that the defendant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for its late inclusion, as the abuse allegations were raised early in the proceedings.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological and physiotherapy services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence for psychological services unreliable due to unexplained contradictions in his self-reporting between his own expert and the insurer's examiner.

The claim for physiotherapy services was dismissed because the applicant failed to submit the disputed treatment plan.

The applicant's request for costs was also denied as it lacked supporting evidence or argument.

The applicant sought a medical benefit of $2,000 for psychological services following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim, finding that the applicant's self-reporting to her own experts was inconsistent with her statements during the insurer's examination.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the insurer's expert, who concluded that the applicant did not suffer from a psychological impairment requiring formal services.

The applicant's request for costs was also denied as it was unsupported by evidence or argument.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for various treatment plans, including rehabilitation, occupational therapy, rehabilitation support worker, and psychological services.

The Insurer denied the plans based on assessments from its own experts.

The Arbitrator found the Applicant's experts, who diagnosed chronic pain syndrome and severe depression, to be more credible and qualified than the Insurer's assessors.

All six treatment plans were deemed reasonable and necessary and were approved.

However, the Arbitrator declined to order a special award, finding that the Insurer had not acted unreasonably in requesting assessments and denying the claims given the circumstances.

The defendant brought a summary judgment motion seeking dismissal of a personal injury action as statute‑barred under the two‑year limitation period in the Limitations Act, 2002.

The defendant argued the claim was discovered on the date of the motor vehicle accident.

The court considered the interaction between the discoverability rule and the threshold requirements under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act, which require proof of permanent serious impairment or disfigurement before liability arises.

Relying on expert evidence indicating that permanence of the injuries could not reasonably be assessed shortly after the accident, the court held that discoverability of the claim depended on when the permanence of the injuries could be determined.

Given the limited evidentiary record and absence of defence expert evidence, the court found that the plaintiff had a reasonable chance of proving discoverability at trial.

The summary judgment motion was therefore dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents in 2007.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence to be unreliable due to poor recall and contradictions with documentary evidence, including Ontario Works records showing he had returned to work.

Relying on the medical evidence, particularly the applicant's orthopaedic surgeon, the arbitrator concluded the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment for a limited period.

The applicant was awarded income replacement benefits from July 7, 2009, to August 1, 2010, but his claims for various assessment costs and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the insurer terminated them at the two-year mark.

The applicant brought a motion for interim benefits pending arbitration.

The arbitrator found that the applicant had demonstrated a strong case for ongoing entitlement and severe financial hardship.

The arbitrator also excluded video surveillance evidence proffered by the insurer due to late and incomplete disclosure under Rule 40 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code.

The motion for interim benefits was granted.