Dr. Aziz

The applicant sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying his claim for income replacement benefits.

The applicant argued that the Tribunal heard misleading evidence because his family physician failed to bring clinical notes to the hearing.

The Associate Chair denied the request, finding that a witness being ill-prepared does not constitute false or misleading evidence under Rule 18.2(c), which requires an intention to deceive.

Furthermore, the clinical notes did not qualify as new evidence under Rule 18.2(d) because they existed prior to the hearing and could have been obtained earlier.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until the 104-week mark, at which point the respondent terminated them.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for ongoing benefits, arguing he suffered a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment due to physical and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's medical evidence failed to address the more stringent post-104 week test and lacked specific diagnoses.

The Tribunal accepted the respondent's expert evidence that the applicant could return to work and had alternative vocational options.