Grace Gronkowska

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to Non-Earner Benefits (NEBs) and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting he had resumed working as an Uber driver.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to warrant removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's medical assessments which found no significant functional or psychological impairments.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing injury, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to demonstrate that her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's medical evidence that the injuries were uncomplicated soft tissue injuries and that there was no accident-related psychological injury.

The application for benefits and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to income replacement benefits, removal from the Minor Injury Guideline, and payment for several treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment as a self-employed painter, relying on medical evidence showing mostly normal physical function and no significant psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft-tissue sprains and strains, keeping him within the Minor Injury Guideline.

Because the $3,500 limit had been exhausted, the claims for additional treatment plans and an award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following two motor vehicle accidents.

The adjudicator held that the applicant was precluded from claiming an income replacement benefit for the second accident because he had elected to receive a non-earner benefit, an election that is final under s. 35(3) of the Schedule.

For the first accident, the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in employment to qualify for a post-104 income replacement benefit.

Furthermore, the adjudicator found that the applicant's injuries from both accidents fell within the Minor Injury Guideline, as he failed to demonstrate that pre-existing conditions, chronic pain, or psychological impairments prevented him from achieving maximum medical recovery within the guideline's limits.

All claims were dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, medical benefits for physiotherapy, and the cost of a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal first allowed the applicant's late-filed medical evidence due to an administrative error.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the non-earner benefit because he failed to provide a comparison of his pre- and post-accident activities.

The physiotherapy treatment plan was denied as the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary burden and the respondent's medical evidence indicated he had reached maximum medical recovery.

However, the Tribunal granted the cost of the chronic pain assessment, preferring the evidence of the applicant's chronic pain specialist over the respondent's orthopaedic surgeon.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied certain medical benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were minor and that she failed to establish chronic pain or an accident-related psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the disputed treatment plans were not payable.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought medical benefits for chronic pain assessments and programs following a rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and that she failed to establish that her chronic pain or pre-existing psychological condition warranted removal from the MIG.

As the requested treatment plans exceeded the remaining MIG funding limit, they were not payable, and the application was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment under Rule 19.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure after the defendant was noted in default in a motor vehicle accident action.

The court found the defendant entirely liable for the collision and accepted evidence that the plaintiff suffered chronic pain, orthopedic injuries, and depression that significantly impaired his ability to perform flooring installation work.

The court held that the plaintiff met the statutory threshold under s. 267.5(3) of the Insurance Act for a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

Non‑pecuniary damages were assessed at $65,000 before the statutory deductible, with additional awards for future housekeeping capacity, future medical expenses, and loss of future earning capacity.

Claims for past income loss and past housekeeping expenses were dismissed for lack of sufficient proof.