3 total
Reconsideration of IRB denial dismissed; applicant failed to establish errors of law, fact, or procedural fairness.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision denying him income replacement benefits and a treatment plan.
He argued the adjudicator misapprehended expert evidence, breached procedural fairness, and made errors of fact and law regarding causation and expert qualifications.
The Vice Chair dismissed the request, finding no errors of law or fact and no breach of procedural fairness, noting the applicant was attempting to re-litigate the case.
The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed, as the applicant's conduct did not rise to the level of being unreasonable, frivolous, or vexatious.
Application for income replacement benefits dismissed as impairments were caused by an unrelated subsequent disc herniation.
The applicant sought income replacement benefits and a physiotherapy treatment plan following a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were caused by a subsequent disc herniation rather than the accident.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries from the accident were soft tissue injuries that had substantially healed before the disc herniation occurred.
The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's orthopaedic surgeon over the applicant's experts, concluding the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that his physical or psychological impairments were caused by the accident.
The application was dismissed, with no entitlement to benefits, an award, or interest.
Insurer liable for mental distress damages for unreasonably denying statutory accident benefits.
The appellant insurer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent insured statutory accident benefits and $25,000 in damages for mental distress following a motor vehicle accident.
The insurer had terminated housekeeping and transportation benefits based on a superficial independent medical examination, ignoring its own occupational therapist's recommendations.
The Court of Appeal upheld the awards for housekeeping benefits, s. 24 assessments, and mental distress, finding that peace of mind is a reasonably contemplated object of an automobile insurance contract.
The court allowed the appeal only to reduce the quantum of transportation benefits from $7,500 to $2,280 due to a lack of evidence supporting the higher amount.