Dr. Pillai

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment (CAT) as a result of a motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to attendant care benefits and a special award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the CAT threshold under Criterion 8, as she only demonstrated moderate, rather than marked, impairments in the spheres of functioning.

The claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed because the expenses were not incurred.

However, the Tribunal granted a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding that the respondent unreasonably delayed and withheld payment of income replacement benefits and treatment plans.

The respondent was ordered to pay an award equal to 25% of the delayed benefits.

The applicant was injured in a bicycle-motorcycle collision and sought various statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment (CAT).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a marked impairment in the adaptation domain resulting from psychological and behavioural disorders.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims for post-104 week income replacement benefits, finding he did not suffer a complete inability to work.

Claims for attendant care and housekeeping benefits were also dismissed because the applicant failed to prove his father, the service provider, suffered an economic loss.

A claim for a special award was denied as the insurer did not unreasonably withhold benefits.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and medical benefits for physiotherapy and chiropractic treatment.

The insurer denied the claims.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was not entitled to IRBs for the initial period due to her failure to provide requested financial information on time.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a kitchen helper due to her physical and deteriorating psychological impairments, entitling her to IRBs for the subsequent periods claimed.

The Tribunal denied the medical benefits, finding that the applicant's physical injuries had largely resolved and the disputed treatment plans were not reasonable and necessary.

The Insurer sought its expenses of $75,343.92 following an arbitration where success was divided but predominantly in favour of the Insurer.

The Applicant also sought his expenses.

The Arbitrator considered the criteria under Rule 75.2 of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, noting the Insurer's written offer to settle for $100,000, which exceeded the Applicant's recovery.

The Arbitrator also noted the Applicant's conduct in failing to comply with production orders, which prolonged the proceedings.

The Arbitrator reduced the Insurer's claimed legal fees and disbursements to reflect the Applicant's partial success and the applicable hourly rates, awarding the Insurer $40,357.10 in expenses.

The Applicant's request for expenses was dismissed.

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.