Dr. P.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a prior Licence Appeal Tribunal decision which found she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment and was not entitled to disputed medical and attendant care benefits.

The applicant argued the adjudicator breached procedural fairness and made errors of fact and law, including misapprehending medical evidence and improperly admitting a prior court decision to impeach her credibility.

The adjudicator dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no breach of procedural fairness and concluding that the applicant was attempting to relitigate issues and re-weigh evidence already considered.

The union appealed the denial of long-term disability benefits to a claimant who suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome and chronic pain.

The insurer had terminated benefits at the change of definition date, determining the claimant was not totally disabled from performing the essential duties of any occupation.

The arbitrator reviewed the medical evidence, including several independent medical examinations, and found insufficient objective evidence of totally disabling cognitive or physical impairments.

The appeal was dismissed as the claimant failed to meet the onus of establishing total disability from any occupation.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied certain medical and rehabilitation benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained psychological injuries, including adjustment disorder with anxiety and major depressive disorder, which removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a psychological assessment, psychological treatment, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, claims for further physiotherapy and a neurological assessment were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on the approved expenses.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the claim on the basis that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant sustained impairments from the accident, including exacerbation of pre-existing back issues and a concussion, she did not meet the test for a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of occupational therapists over the applicant's self-reports, noting she continued to engage in substantially all of her pre-accident activities, including providing childcare for her granddaughter.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought ongoing income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming that his daily use of marijuana to control anxiety and pain prevented him from working.

The respondent had terminated IRBs based on insurer's examinations and sought repayment of an overpayment, alleging wilful misrepresentation of the applicant's employment status.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove his marijuana dependency or other impairments resulted in a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's claim for repayment, finding no wilful misrepresentation and noting the respondent failed to provide notice within the 12-month limitation period.

Claims for a special award and costs were also dismissed.

The applicant, a 15-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The Board assessed whether the five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder, had made substantial threats to cause serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that the secure treatment program would be effective and appropriate.

Finding that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate, the Board dismissed the application and upheld the admission.

The applicant child sought a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child had a history of running away, medication non-compliance, and aggressive behaviour, and was diagnosed with a mental disorder related to prenatal alcohol exposure.

The Board applied the criteria for emergency admission under the governing child and family services legislation.

Finding that the child posed a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that no less restrictive treatment method was appropriate, the Board dismissed the application and ordered that the child remain in the secure treatment program.