Dr. Jay McGrory

The applicant sought payment for a psychological services treatment plan and an award for unreasonable delay under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the psychological services were not reasonable and necessary, relying on an insurer's examination that concluded the applicant did not meet the diagnostic threshold for a psychological disorder.

However, the Tribunal granted a 20% award under section 10 of Regulation 664, finding the respondent unreasonably delayed approval of a previously submitted occupational therapy treatment plan for nearly two years without explanation.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, arguing her injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant did not meet her burden to prove a functional impairment from chronic pain or a psychological impairment, placing weight on the respondent's independent medical and psychological evaluations which included objective testing.

As the applicant remained subject to the MIG, her claims for various treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were dismissed.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous Tribunal decision that held him to the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and denied his treatment plans.

The Vice-Chair found that the original decision contained a factual error regarding the interpretation of a CT scan report, which did not rule out a concussion as previously concluded.

Upon re-hearing the matter, the Vice-Chair determined that the applicant's consistent neurological symptoms supported a concussion diagnosis, removing him from the MIG.

The applicant was awarded funding for physiotherapy, massage, and occupational therapy (excluding travel time), plus interest.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant, a minor struck by a car while riding a bicycle, sought statutory accident benefits including a non-earner benefit and funding for chiropractic treatment plans.

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

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to prove his injuries warranted removal from the MIG, as medical evidence indicated only soft tissue injuries.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for a non-earner benefit, finding insufficient evidence of a complete inability to carry on a normal life, and found the treatment plans were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, various treatment plans, and removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain, a concussion, and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that her injuries warranted removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's section 44 medical reports over the applicant's subjective reporting and family doctor records.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for a non-earner benefit, finding the applicant failed to provide a comparison of pre- and post-accident activities as required by Heath, and failed to comply with section 33 requests for an updated disability certificate.

As the applicant was subject to the MIG and no benefits were overdue, the claims for treatment plans, interest, and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a pre-existing low back condition, psychological impairments, chronic pain, and a concussion.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for removal from the MIG, preferring the respondent's section 44 assessments over the applicant's evidence, which lacked corroboration from the family doctor's clinical notes.

As the applicant remained within the MIG, the disputed treatment plans were not considered, and claims for interest and a special award were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including psychological services, cardiac rehabilitation, and provider mileage.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to $2,200 for a psychological assessment, as both the applicant's and respondent's psychologists diagnosed accident-related psychological conditions.

However, the Tribunal denied the request for a neuropsychological assessment due to a lack of corroborating medical evidence of cognitive impairment.

The Tribunal also denied the claims for cardiac rehabilitation, finding no cardiac indication for supervised exercise, and denied the claims for provider mileage and PPE as they are not payable under the Schedule.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish her injuries fell outside the MIG.

However, the Tribunal held that the respondent's denial notices for most of the treatment plans were defective under s. 38(8) of the Schedule because they failed to provide sufficient medical reasons.

As a result, the defective notices did not trigger the two-year limitation period, and the respondent was required to fund the disputed treatment plans once incurred, pursuant to s. 38(11).

Claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's physical and psychological injuries did not warrant removal from the MIG, her accident-related chronic pain condition caused functional impairment justifying removal.

The Tribunal awarded an income replacement benefit for the first 104 weeks post-accident, finding the applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform her duties as a personal support worker.

However, post-104 week benefits were denied as she did not demonstrate a complete inability to engage in any suitable employment.

Various treatment plans and assessments were approved in part, and interest was awarded on overdue payments.

The applicant sought a $2,200 psychological assessment following a motor vehicle accident, arguing his injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found the applicant's physical injuries were minor soft tissue injuries that resolved within months, and that his subsequent pain complaints were related to a second accident and a fall.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's psychological claims, finding his symptoms arose nearly two years post-accident and were likely caused by situational stressors rather than the subject accident.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was found not entitled to the disputed treatment plan or interest.

The applicant, who was 12 years old at the time of the motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits for physical and psychological impairments.

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence to establish that he sustained physical or psychological impairments outside the MIG.

Furthermore, the applicant did not prove that his pre-existing cognitive and psychological conditions prevented him from achieving maximal recovery within the MIG limits.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans for physiotherapy and psychological services were deemed not reasonable and necessary, and no interest was payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement to a non-earner benefit, removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG), and approval of various treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life, relying on insurer examinations and surveillance evidence that contradicted her testimony.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, or chronic pain that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans and claims for an award and interest were also denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming costs for an orthopaedic assessment, a functional abilities evaluation, and psychological treatment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, relying on its own independent medical examinations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the orthopaedic assessment and psychological treatment were reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's ongoing chronic pain and psychological symptoms, which were exacerbated by the accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for the functional abilities evaluation, finding it redundant given the orthopaedic assessment.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award, finding the insurer did not unreasonably withhold or delay payments.

A child protection application under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning a child born to parents with a history of prior child protection findings.

The respondent father had been convicted of serious sexual offences including sexual abuse of a child, possession of child pornography, and indecent exposure.

The child was apprehended at birth and placed with the paternal grandmother and uncle.

The Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection under clause 74(2)(d) (risk of sexual abuse or exploitation) and sought placement with the paternal grandmother and uncle under Society supervision.

The respondent parents sought dismissal of the application or, alternatively, return of the child to their care.

The court found the child was in need of protection but determined that placement with the parents under Society supervision was in the child's best interests, recognizing the father's prosocial behaviour over many years, the mother's demonstrated protective capacity, and the child's strong attachment to both parents.

This is a summary judgment motion arising from a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child born in 2012.

The Society sought to make the child a Crown ward with no access to the parents.

The mother was in default and had abandoned the child after only thirteen days of placement in her care.

The father sought placement of the child in his care subject to supervision.

The court found that the father lacked parenting ability and commitment to care for the child independently, had not visited the child since she was taken into care in October 2014, and had a long history of parenting deficiencies.

The court granted the Society's motion and made the child a Crown ward with no access to either parent.

Application by Chatham-Kent Children's Services regarding five children in need of protection.

The court found that the children were in need of protection due to chronic neglect, physical abuse, parental cognitive limitations, and exposure to domestic conflict.

The mother and father of the two youngest children proposed returning all five children to their care in Quebec, but the court rejected this plan as inadequate and unsafe.

The court ordered that the three oldest children be placed in kinship care or as Crown wards with specified access arrangements, and that the two youngest children be made Crown wards with no parental access to facilitate adoption.