Dr. E. Gavett-Liu

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

Her initial application was dismissed by the Tribunal and upheld on judicial review.

She filed a new application, and the respondent raised the preliminary issue of res judicata.

The applicant also raised a constitutional challenge, arguing the Tribunal's practice of holding written preliminary issue hearings violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Tribunal dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding the practice direction was a non-binding guideline and the applicant had consented to the written format.

The Tribunal further held that the application was barred by res judicata, as the issues had been previously decided on their merits and the applicant failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances that would conclusively impeach the original decision.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident, after a previous Tribunal decision found she did not meet the criteria.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the application was barred by res judicata.

The applicant also raised a constitutional challenge, arguing the Tribunal's practice of holding preliminary issue hearings in writing violated her section 7 Charter rights.

The Tribunal dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding the practice direction was a non-binding guideline and the applicant had consented to the written format.

The Tribunal further held that the application was barred by res judicata, as the same question had been decided in a final decision between the same parties, and the applicant failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances that would conclusively impeach the original result.

The Applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment and was entitled to ongoing income replacement benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident.

The Respondent brought a preliminary motion to strike the Applicant's catastrophic impairment report, arguing it was not conducted by a physician as required by section 45(2)1 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal dismissed the motion, finding the report was directed by a physician and compliant with the Schedule.

On the merits, the Tribunal preferred the Applicant's expert evidence, concluding he suffered a marked impairment in all four areas of functioning due to somatic symptom disorder and major depressive disorder.

The Tribunal found the Applicant catastrophically impaired and completely unable to engage in suitable employment, granting entitlement to income replacement benefits and interest.