Dr. Hiten Lad

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs) and interest.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant could maintain employment.

The Tribunal found the applicant suffered a concussion and mild traumatic brain injury, leading to significant physical and psychological impairments.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts over the respondent's, the Tribunal concluded the applicant demonstrated a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she is reasonably suited by education, training, or experience.

The applicant was awarded IRBs of $168.59 per week from August 24, 2023, to date, plus interest.

The defendant Metrolinx brought a motion seeking an order to compel the injured plaintiff, J.E., to attend an in-person psychiatric assessment.

Metrolinx argued this was necessary to respond to evidence regarding J.E.'s psychiatric conditions, including a recent schizophrenia diagnosis.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing their pleadings did not attribute the recent psychiatric conditions to the incident and that their expert, a neuropsychologist, could address the diagnoses.

The court dismissed Metrolinx's motion, finding that Metrolinx had not established the necessity of the in-person assessment to level the playing field, especially since their own psychiatrist had already provided a paper review report addressing causation.

The court emphasized that the plaintiff's pleadings did not allege the 2017 incident caused the 2023 psychiatric conditions and that the role of treating healthcare professionals as participant experts is limited by the court's gatekeeper function.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment due to a mild traumatic brain injury and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 6 (Glasgow Outcome Scale) because she maintained some independence and employment.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant sustained a marked impairment in adaptation under Criterion 8 due to her somatic symptom disorder and cognitive challenges.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits of $1,561.89 per month, various treatment plans, and interest, but denied the claim for 24/7 attendant care and a special award under Regulation 664.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The insurer denied the claims.

The arbitrator dismissed all of the applicant's claims, finding that the applicant lacked credibility and failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment or his housekeeping tasks.

The arbitrator also found that the applicant's wife did not sustain an economic loss to justify the attendant care and housekeeping claims.

Claims for a special award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The applicant was catastrophically injured in a motorcycle accident and claimed 24-hour attendant care benefits.

The insurer reduced benefits based on an occupational therapy assessment and denied payment to the applicant's former partner, a registered nurse, arguing she was a non-professional service provider who failed to prove economic loss under the February 1, 2014 amendments to the Schedule.

The arbitrator held that the applicant's right to benefits did not vest at the time of the accident, making the amendments applicable.

However, the former partner qualified as a professional service provider due to her nursing credentials.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts, the arbitrator found that the applicant required 24-hour care due to physical, cognitive, and emotional impairments, awarding past and ongoing attendant care benefits up to $6,000 per month, plus costs.