Dr. Ranjith Chandrasena

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) beyond the 104-week post-accident mark, requiring him to prove a complete inability to engage in any reasonably suited employment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, relying on surveillance evidence and expert reports suggesting the applicant had some capacity for work.

The Tribunal found the applicant's testimony, corroborated by his spouse and medical evidence, established that his chronic pain and severe psychological impairments prevented him from sustaining employment.

The Tribunal placed significant weight on the applicant's experts and found the surveillance evidence did not contradict his reported limitations.

The applicant was awarded ongoing IRBs and interest on overdue payments.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal assessed various Whole Person Impairment (WPI) ratings provided by multiple medical experts for physical and psychological impairments, including complex regional pain syndrome, sleep disturbances, and right upper extremity deficits.

The Tribunal rejected several of the applicant's expert ratings for failing to follow the AMA Guides' methodology and lacking objective medical evidence.

Ultimately, the Tribunal calculated a combined WPI rating of 50%, falling short of the 55% threshold required for a catastrophic impairment designation.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents in 2013 and 2014, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a marked or extreme impairment in any of the four functional domains.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's experts, noting that the applicant's experts failed to adequately consider his extensive pre-existing medical and psychiatric conditions, including chronic pain, depression, and strokes.

The Tribunal also found that the disputed treatment plans for a functional ability evaluation and an attendant care assessment were not reasonable and necessary, as the applicant's ongoing impairments were primarily attributable to the progression of his pre-accident conditions.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders) following a 2012 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal first dismissed the applicant's preliminary motion for summary judgment, finding no jurisdiction to dispose of substantive issues without a hearing.

On the merits, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's psychiatric expert over the applicant's expert, finding that the applicant's functional impairments were primarily caused by physical chronic pain rather than an accident-related mental or behavioural disorder.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a marked or extreme impairment in any of the four areas of functioning.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay $250 in costs for unreasonable delays in producing disclosures.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to medication costs (Cialis) and a determination of catastrophic impairment based on mental and behavioural disorders (Criterion 8).

The Tribunal dismissed the application.

The claim for medication was denied because the applicant failed to prove the prescription was necessitated by the accident rather than other substances, such as hair loss medication or bodybuilding supplements.

On the catastrophic impairment issue, the Tribunal found the applicant had a marked impairment in only one domain (adaptation) and moderate impairments in the other three (activities of daily living; social functioning; concentration, persistence and pace), falling short of the threshold requiring marked impairment in three domains.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment based on a mental and behavioural disorder (Criterion 8) following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant relied on the opinions of an ABI specialist and an orthopaedic surgeon, neither of whom performed formal catastrophic impairment testing.

The respondent presented surveillance evidence showing the applicant performing activities of daily living unassisted, contradicting her self-reports, and a psychiatric assessment concluding she suffered only moderate impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving a catastrophic impairment, noting inconsistencies in her reporting and the lack of qualified psychological or psychiatric assessments supporting her claim.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the accused following his conviction for armed robbery with a knife, assault with a knife, and breach of probation.

The accused had an extensive criminal history spanning nearly three decades, including multiple violent offences, sexual assaults with weapons, robberies, and breaches of court orders.

The court found the accused met the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation under section 753 of the Criminal Code, establishing a pattern of repetitive violent behaviour showing failure to restrain conduct and likelihood of causing death or injury.

The court rejected the defence argument that cognitive behavioural therapy could adequately manage the accused's risk in the community and imposed an indeterminate sentence of detention in a penitentiary.