Dr. Grossman

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought caregiver and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Respondent denied caregiver benefits, arguing the Applicant did not reside with his parents and failed to provide proof of incurred expenses.

The Respondent also denied a rehabilitation benefit for an electric assist motor bicycle.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the Applicant 'resided with' his parents based on a broad interpretation of the term, considering his intention and continuity of care, despite living 900 metres away.

The Tribunal also accepted cash payments to a former nanny as adequate proof of incurred expenses.

Finally, the Tribunal found the electric assist bicycle was a reasonable and necessary rehabilitation expense to help the Applicant return to his pre-accident cardiovascular activities while minimizing impact on his injuries.

The Applicant was awarded the claimed benefits and interest.

The applicant sought expenses following a successful arbitration for statutory accident benefits.

The insurer conceded entitlement but disputed the quantum of legal fees and expert disbursements.

The arbitrator assessed the legal fees, allowing the full time claimed by the junior lawyer who had carriage of the file, but reducing the time claimed by the senior lawyer for duplication.

The arbitrator also assessed the disbursements for various medical experts, reducing some hourly rates to the maximum allowed under Schedule F of the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, and reducing the amounts claimed for certain medical assessments and reports.

The total expenses awarded were $18,888.71.

The complainant, who has seasonal allergies, applied to be a firefighter with the City of Ottawa.

His application was rejected three times on medical grounds despite evidence from his own allergist and the City's consulting specialists that his condition was mild and would not impede his ability to perform the duties of a firefighter.

The Board of Inquiry found that the City discriminated against the complainant because of a handicap, acting recklessly by ignoring expert medical advice.

The Board ordered the City to pay special and general damages, to allow the complainant to complete the physical testing, and to offer him employment if successful.