Galit Liffshiz

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment including a traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle accident, sought various statutory accident benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to a non-earner benefit for a limited period, as she demonstrated a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal also approved a treatment plan for psychological services, finding it reasonable and necessary given her ongoing psychological impairments.

However, claims for a rehabilitation support worker, occupational therapy, kinesiology, and life skills training were dismissed due to insufficient evidence or because similar previously approved funds remained unutilized.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer did not act in bad faith.

The applicant, a tourist from China, was injured in a motorcoach accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including attendant care benefits (ACB) and various medical and rehabilitation benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessors who found normal range of motion and negative response bias over the applicant's outdated and self-report-based assessments.

The Tribunal also found the applicant was not entitled to ACB due to inconsistent evidence regarding incurred expenses and non-compliance with section 33 of the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the treatment plans.

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

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors, noting credibility issues and a lack of contemporaneous medical evidence supporting the applicant's assessors.

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

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer refused certain benefits, leading to arbitration.

A preliminary issue hearing was held to determine if the applicant had the mental capacity to proceed in the dispute resolution process, following a previous finding that he lacked capacity.

Based on a new capacity assessment report by an occupational therapist, which concluded the applicant could manage his affairs, and the arbitrator's own observations, the arbitrator found that the applicant now has the mental capacity to proceed.

The plaintiff sought damages after a fall from an apartment building fire escape, alleging breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act and the Fire Code due to accumulated snow and ice.

The court held that fire escapes must be kept safe for emergency use and that the occupier’s duty was not negated merely because tenants used the area for smoking, but found the defendants had a reasonable winter maintenance system in place.

The plaintiff failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that ice on the fire escape caused the fall, particularly given credibility problems, inconsistent accounts of the accident, and photographic and witness evidence inconsistent with the alleged icy condition.

The action was dismissed.

The court nevertheless assessed hypothetical damages totalling substantial non-pecuniary, loss of competitive advantage, future care, and OHIP subrogated amounts.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination that he suffered a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder, as well as entitlement to attendant care benefits.

The arbitrator applied the three-stage test from Pastore v. Aviva Canada Inc. and found that the accident materially contributed to a cognitive disorder that significantly impaired the applicant's daily life.

The arbitrator concluded the applicant had a marked impairment in concentration, persistence, pace, and work adaptation, meeting the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator awarded a monthly attendant care benefit of $3,036.82, finding the applicant required some supervisory care but not the constant supervision claimed.