Dr. Adam Kassam

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that found her entitled to income replacement benefits (IRBs) but quantified them at nil.

The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by admitting late-filed expert reports from the insurer's examination (IE) assessors regarding medical entitlement, and erred in law by finding she was self-employed and excluding her prior year's employment income.

The Tribunal granted the reconsideration in part, varying the decision to vacate all findings related to medical entitlement due to the respondent's breach of expert disclosure rules.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the request regarding the quantum of IRBs, finding no error in the determination that the applicant was self-employed and that her IRBs were correctly calculated at nil under the Schedule.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was whether the applicant, a personal support worker who had recently registered a business at the behest of a staffing agency, was 'employed' or 'self-employed' under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment for a closed period.

However, applying the Schedule's definitions, the Tribunal determined she was solely self-employed at the time of the accident.

Because her business reported no income in the prior fiscal year, and she could not rely on her previous employment income, the quantum of her IRBs was calculated as nil.

The application was dismissed.