Dr. Ian Smith

The applicant sought attendant care benefits of $2,058.90 per month following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

In a partial rehearing, the Licence Appeal Tribunal considered competing occupational therapy assessments regarding the applicant's need for assistance with personal care, meal preparation, and hygiene.

The Tribunal rejected the respondent's position that no attendant care was required, finding that the applicant's pain, fatigue, and lack of motivation necessitated assistance.

However, the Tribunal reduced the applicant's claimed hours, finding some requests duplicative or mitigated by approved assistive devices.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits of $522.30 per month from January 30, 2026, ongoing.

The applicant, who sustained a catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, sought payment for outstanding balances on six treatment plans for psychological services and $400 for housekeeping benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to justify billing a psychotherapist's services at the higher hourly rate of a psychologist.

The claim for housekeeping benefits was denied because the applicant provided no evidence that the expenses were actually incurred or reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits following a September 2022 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant's impairments stemmed from pre-existing depression and a prior accident in June 2022.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' causation test and the Heath framework, finding the applicant failed to prove her impairments were caused by the September accident.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's section 44 assessors, who properly compared the applicant's functioning before and after both accidents, over the applicant's section 25 assessors, who failed to review pre-accident records or account for the prior accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits and funding for physiotherapy and psychological assessments.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide objective medical evidence that his physical or psychological injuries fell outside the MIG, or that he met the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain.

The Tribunal also found the applicant did not prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment, relying on the clinical notes of his treating physician which lacked mention of accident-related symptoms or inability to work during the disputed period.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for psychological impairments, which the respondent insurer denied on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guidelines (MIG).

The applicant argued that diagnoses of PTSD and Adjustment Disorder took him outside the MIG.

The Tribunal weighed competing psychological assessments and preferred the respondent's expert, who conducted a response validity test and found no discernible accident-related psychological impairments.

The Tribunal attached minimal weight to the applicant's experts due to methodological flaws and inconsistencies.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor, dismissing the claims for psychological assessment and treatment, as well as the claim for an award for unreasonably withheld benefits.

The applicant sought payment for chiropractic and psychological treatment plans following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer argued it was not liable due to the applicant's failure to provide requested medical records under s. 33 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the requested information was not reasonably required, as the insurer had already denied the claims on their merits.

However, on the substantive issues, the Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that neither treatment plan was reasonable and necessary given the preponderance of medical evidence, including multiple insurer examinations indicating no further need for treatment and a lengthy gap in seeking treatment.

The respondent's request for costs was also denied.