Dr. Jacobs

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The respondent denied various treatment and assessment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she sustained a concussion and chronic pain, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the objective medical evidence, including hospital and family doctor records, did not support a concussion diagnosis.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical assessments, finding the applicant did not demonstrate a functional impairment or meet the criteria for chronic pain.

The application was dismissed, as the injuries were deemed minor and subject to the $3,500 funding limit.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for a chronic pain program, psychological services, and driving rehabilitation.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant did not satisfy the AMA Guides criteria for chronic pain, and the objective medical evidence, including an insurer's examination, did not support a psychological impairment.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and a special award were denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including a psychological assessment, driver's rehabilitation assessment, multidisciplinary chronic pain program, and psychological services.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the treatments were reasonable and necessary.

The psychological assessment was given no weight as it was conducted by a psychotherapist with minimal involvement from the supervising psychologist.

The driver's rehabilitation assessment was denied because the applicant's licence was suspended due to a criminal conviction.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's psychiatrists over the applicant's medical evidence.

Claims for an award, interest, and costs were also dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, which the respondent insurer denied.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The adjudicator found that the applicant was entitled to a psychological assessment and psychological services, as the evidence supported that she suffered from accident-related psychological impairments warranting removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

However, the adjudicator denied the claims for physical treatments, functional abilities evaluation, and chronic pain programs, finding insufficient objective medical evidence to establish they were reasonable and necessary.

The adjudicator also awarded a 5% special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664 and $200 in costs against the respondent due to its unreasonable 16-month delay in removing the applicant from the MIG after its own assessor recommended it.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought pre- and post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs), which the respondent insurer denied.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a sheet metal fabricator and airplane mechanic due to ongoing pain from a right leg fracture.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant met the more stringent post-104 week test, as his chronic pain and physical limitations resulted in a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal also ordered a 10% award against the insurer under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding that the insurer unreasonably withheld benefits by failing to adjust the claim after receiving compelling medical reports supporting the applicant's ongoing impairments.

The applicant sought medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 limit had been exhausted.

The applicant argued his injuries were outside the MIG due to chronic pain and psychological injuries, and that the respondent failed to provide timely notice of denial for one treatment plan.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer from chronic pain or psychological injuries, and that the respondent's notice was compliant with the Schedule.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff sought certification of a class action against Mercedes-Benz entities, alleging that BlueTEC diesel vehicles contained "defeat devices" that turned off emission controls below 10 degrees Celsius, leading to excessive nitrogen oxide emissions.

The action primarily claimed economic loss due to negligent misrepresentation, alongside statutory claims under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and Competition Act, and common law claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of warranties, and waiver of tort.

The court granted certification for 14 of the 17 proposed common issues, revising three and declining to certify three (negligence, breach of express/implied warranties, and aggregate damages).

The decision clarified the "some basis in fact" test for common issues, emphasizing a one-step approach focused on class-wide commonality, and reiterated that aggregate damages are for the quantum of loss, not proof of liability, requiring liability to be established first.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for various treatment plans and assessments.

The insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's chronic pain and the medical evidence supported that his injuries were not minor.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for four treatment plans for physical therapy and an orthopaedic assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

An in-home assessment was deemed incurred because the insurer unreasonably denied it without adequate medical reasons.

However, a cognitive assessment recommended by a chiropractor was denied as it was beyond the chiropractor's scope of practice and unsupported by psychological evidence.

The applicant was injured when struck by a vehicle and sought payment from his insurer for a multidisciplinary assessment conducted by DEAHY Medical Assessments Inc., totalling $2,461.

The insurer denied the benefit, arguing the assessments were unnecessary, duplicative, and unreasonably priced.

The arbitrator found that the physiotherapy and functional capacity assessments were reasonable and payable, but the orthopaedic assessment was unnecessary as the applicant should have sought a report from his treating surgeon.

The arbitrator ordered the insurer to pay $1,498 plus interest, and dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award.