Dr. K.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought a medical benefit of $2,961.72 for a kinesiologist-supervised exercise program.

The respondent denied the claim, arguing the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and could perform exercises independently.

The Tribunal found the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's treating practitioners that supervision was required to avoid aggravating her impairments and to support her psychological well-being.

The applicant was awarded the claimed benefit.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming the costs of a chronic pain treatment program and a chronic pain assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's pain was caused by pre-existing osteoarthritis rather than the accident.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's knee complaints were due to pre-existing degeneration, the accident exacerbated his pre-existing degenerative disc disease, leading to chronic back pain.

The Tribunal awarded partial funding for the chronic pain treatment program ($3,718.53) and full funding for the chronic pain assessment ($2,200.00).

The issue of interest was deferred.

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained psychological injuries, including adjustment disorder with anxiety and major depressive disorder, which removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for a psychological assessment, psychological treatment, and a chronic pain assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary.

However, claims for further physiotherapy and a neurological assessment were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

Interest was awarded on the approved expenses.

The Court held that under s. 16(3) of the Canada Evidence Act, an adult witness with mental disabilities is competent if they can communicate evidence and promise to tell the truth.

Requiring abstract understanding of truth-telling obligations was rejected.

The acquittal was set aside and a new trial ordered.