Dr. Fulton

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, as she failed to establish that her psychological impairments would not have occurred 'but for' the accident, noting a significant time gap and high level of functioning in the intervening years.

The Tribunal granted entitlement to several treatment plans for occupational therapy, assistive devices, and assessments incurred prior to the 260-week mark, but denied plans submitted after that period and denied the claim for living accommodations due to non-compliance with section 38(2) of the Schedule.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend a defence neuropsychological assessment and for an extension of time to serve the resulting expert report.

The plaintiff had increased his damages claim from approximately $1.5 million to $2.1 million based on additional expert reports regarding future care costs delivered between August and October 2024.

The defendant requested the assessment in late October 2024, after the deadline for service of defence expert reports had passed on December 16, 2024.

The court found the defendant had a reasonable explanation for the delayed request, as the plaintiff's expert reports materially changed the damage claim.

The court granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to attend the assessment on October 21, 2025, and granting leave to serve the report by November 30, 2025.

The court also granted the plaintiff leave to amend the statement of claim to increase the quantum of damages without additional terms.

The applicant sought post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent terminated IRBs at the 104-week mark based on insurer examinations suggesting the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's pre-existing psychological impairments, primarily anxiety, were exacerbated by the accident and prevented her from maintaining employment or self-employment.

The Tribunal preferred the applicant's medical evidence over the respondent's dated assessments.

The applicant was awarded ongoing IRBs, though the quantum was reduced to $107.25 per week due to an initial calculation error by the employer, plus interest on overdue amounts.

The defendant Aviva General Insurance Company brought a motion seeking to amend its Statement of Defence and compel the plaintiffs, Johanna Van Dijk-Alac and John Alac, to attend various defence medical examinations.

The plaintiffs claimed psychiatric, neuropsychological, and physical injuries from a motor vehicle accident, and Mr. Alac claimed for lost guidance, care, and companionship.

The court granted Aviva leave to amend its Statement of Defence.

It ordered Ms. Van Dijk-Alac to attend psychiatric and neuropsychological examinations, and Mr. Alac to be available to the psychiatrist for collateral information, but denied Aviva the discretion to unilaterally change experts or pre-determine the number of examination sessions.

The court also denied Aviva's request to be relieved of its obligation to serve expert reports prior to the pre-trial.

The Applicant was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident, sustaining a traumatic brain injury and chronic pain.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, including non-earner, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits, which the Insurer denied or underpaid.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant suffered a complete inability to lead a normal life and awarded non-earner benefits.

The Arbitrator also deemed past attendant care and housekeeping expenses to have been incurred under s. 3(8) of the Schedule, finding that the Insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by failing to advise the impecunious and functionally illiterate Applicant that it would pay for professional services.

However, the Arbitrator declined to order a special award, finding the Insurer's conduct was not sufficiently egregious.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 2008 and sought ongoing income replacement benefits, housekeeping benefits, and medical benefits for psychological treatment.

The insurer terminated benefits, relying on surveillance evidence and medical assessments indicating the applicant's condition had improved and he was exaggerating symptoms.

The arbitrator found the applicant's evidence lacked credibility, noting he failed to disclose a subsequent 2010 accident to assessors and attributed impairments from the second accident to the first.

The application for arbitration was dismissed, as the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment or a substantial inability to perform housekeeping tasks.