3 total
LAT erred in law by imposing an unlegislated threshold for home modification benefits under SABS.
The 92-year-old appellant suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits to modify her daughter's home, where she intended to move to receive 24-hour care.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal denied the claim, holding that the appellant first had to prove her existing condominium could not be modified.
On appeal, the Divisional Court found the LAT erred in law by imposing an unlegislated threshold and adopting an unduly narrow interpretation of 'existing home' under section 16 of the SABS.
The appeal was allowed, and the insurer was ordered to pay the claimed benefits immediately.
Reconsideration dismissed; no procedural unfairness in excluding late witness or requiring proof that current home modifications were prohibited.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claims for home modifications to her daughter's home under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.
The applicant argued the Tribunal breached procedural fairness by excluding her Personal Support Worker from testifying and by misapplying the evidentiary burden regarding a section 44 assessment.
She also argued the Tribunal erred in law by not interpreting 'existing home' to include her daughter's home.
The Tribunal dismissed the reconsideration request, finding no breach of procedural fairness in excluding a late-identified witness and concluding that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence that her current residence could not be modified.
Applicant with catastrophic brain injury awarded attendant care and housekeeping benefits due to motivational limitations.
The applicant was involved in a severe motor vehicle accident resulting in catastrophic impairment, including a brain injury.
He sought attendant care benefits and housekeeping and home maintenance benefits, which the respondent insurer denied.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while the applicant was physically capable of performing tasks, his brain injury caused significant emotional and motivational limitations.
The Tribunal concluded that the applicant was entitled to attendant care benefits for comfort, safety, and security, calculated at 240 minutes per week, as well as housekeeping and home maintenance benefits of $100 per week, plus interest on overdue amounts.