The appellant appealed a License Appeal Tribunal (LAT) reconsideration decision that denied his claim for catastrophic impairment benefits following a 2006 motor vehicle accident.
The appellant argued the LAT erred in law by ignoring or mischaracterizing medical evidence and violating procedural fairness by relying on hearsay medical records.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the LAT properly weighed the evidence, gave cogent reasons for its findings, and correctly applied the law.
The court noted that the appellant's arguments amounted to questions of mixed fact and law, which are not appealable under section 11(6) of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.
