Dr. Khamis

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for vision therapy, occupational therapy, a therapeutic mattress, and a psychological assessment following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to prove the treatments and assessments were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, which concluded that the proposed vision therapy lacked validated efficacy and that the applicant had the functional ability to perform pre-accident activities without the proposed occupational therapy.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 of the Schedule and claimed entitlement to a post-104 income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment, as he did not demonstrate a marked impairment in at least two of the four functional domains, specifically finding his social functioning was compatible with some useful functioning.

However, the Tribunal granted the applicant's claim for a post-104 IRB, finding that the combination of his physical, psychological, cognitive, and visual impairments resulted in a complete inability to engage in any employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

Interest was awarded on the overdue IRB payments.

The applicant sought entitlement to statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy, hearing aids, and neuro-visual therapy following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the disputed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's medical assessors, who concluded that the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery for soft tissue injuries, had normal audiogram results, and showed no ophthalmic sequela related to the accident.

As no benefits were payable, the claim for interest was also dismissed.

The moving party, Dr. Chandra, sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a jury verdict dismissing his $130 million libel and invasion of privacy action against the CBC.

The jury had found that the defamatory broadcast alleging scientific fraud was true.

The Court of Appeal denied the extension, finding that the moving party failed to form a timely intention to appeal, provided no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and that the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court also noted the moving party's lack of candour and attempts to encumber his only Ontario asset, concluding that the justice of the case required dismissing the motion.