Dr. Paul Zalzal

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2017 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to psychological disorders.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant suffered from accident-related post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, these resulted in only moderate impairments in the activities of daily living and social functioning.

Consequently, the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims for attendant care benefits, finding them not reasonable and necessary based on orthopedic evidence of normal range of motion.

Claims for an attendant care assessment and various treatment plans were dismissed because the applicant had exhausted the $65,000 non-catastrophic funding limit.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, income replacement benefits (IRBs), and a treatment plan for chiropractic and physiotherapy services.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the claim for attendant care benefits because the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred and failed to comply with the insurer's requests for information under s. 33 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to IRBs for a closed period, but after deducting post-accident employment income (including Employment Insurance benefits), the payable amount was reduced to zero.

The claim for the treatment plan was dismissed as the applicant failed to establish it was reasonable and necessary, given a 19-month gap in treatment and lack of corroborating medical evidence.

The plaintiffs brought an action for damages arising from a workplace accident where the plaintiff truck driver suffered a severe leg fracture while using an electrical pallet jack at the defendant's premises.

The action proceeded as an undefended trial against the defendant Grocery Dayton, who failed to file a Statement of Defence.

Liability was deemed admitted under Rule 25.07(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court assessed damages based on the plaintiff's evidence and filed reports, awarding $125,000 in general damages, $799,100 for future economic loss, $26,100 for future care costs, and $30,000 for the spouse's Family Law Act claim, totaling $980,200.