Dr. Joseph Paton

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to psychological and physical injuries.

The respondent denied the catastrophic impairment designation, non-earner benefits, attendant care benefits, and various treatment plans, arguing her psychological issues and epilepsy were pre-existing.

The Tribunal found that while the accident caused a specific phobia and worsened her pre-existing depression, it did not cause her epilepsy.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 or 8, relying heavily on surveillance evidence and the respondent's expert reports which showed significant post-accident improvement.

The claims for non-earner benefits, attendant care, and treatment plans were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life or that the expenses were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and funding for catastrophic impairment assessments following a 2011 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the non-earner benefit in 2013.

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal more than two years after the limitation period expired, while simultaneously pursuing arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, finding no bona fide intention to appeal to the Tribunal within the time limit, an unexplained lengthy delay, prejudice to the respondent, and a lack of merit due to surveillance evidence contradicting the applicant's claimed impairments.

The Tribunal also denied funding for the catastrophic impairment assessments, finding no reasonable basis or objective evidence to suggest the applicant might meet the catastrophic impairment threshold.

The applicant was injured when his bicycle collided with a transit bus.

He applied for statutory accident benefits, and the respondent insurer approved benefits up to the $3,500 limit for predominantly minor injuries under the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant disputed the amount of his income replacement benefits and sought approval for additional treatment plans, arguing his injuries fell outside the MIG.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found insufficient evidence to vary the income replacement benefits.

The Tribunal also held that the applicant failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition that would prevent his recovery within the MIG limits.

The appeal was dismissed.