Dr. Jacqueline Smith Auguste

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2020 motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits (IRBs), various treatment plans, and an award for unreasonable delay.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were due to pre-existing degenerative disc disease and a prior 2016 accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove her impairments were caused by the subject accident, relying on the respondent's s. 44 assessors who concluded her physical and psychological complaints were not accident-related.

All claims for IRBs, treatment plans, assessments, interest, and an award were dismissed.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, an award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator drew an adverse inference against the applicant for failing to produce ordered medical and employment records without explanation.

Relying on the respondent's medical assessments, the adjudicator found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he remained independent with self-care, household tasks, and his studies.

The application was dismissed, and claims for an award and interest were denied as no benefits were owed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) for a six-month period during which the respondent insurer had terminated them.

The adjudicator found that the applicant, who worked as a personal support worker at two locations prior to the accident, suffered physical impairments that rendered her substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her employment.

Relying on the applicant's medical evidence, including reports from her family doctor and specialists, the adjudicator ordered the respondent to pay the IRBs with interest.

However, the applicant's request for an award under Ontario Regulation 664 for unreasonable delay was denied, as the respondent had actively assessed the file and relied on its own medical assessors.