Dr. Kakar

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving entitlement to the benefits.

The medical evidence, including reports from her family doctors and an insurer's examination, did not support a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

Furthermore, the applicant's submissions lacked legal argument and failed to connect the medical evidence to the accident.

The application was dismissed, and no interest was payable.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2008 motor vehicle accident, including costs for a psychiatric evaluation, an OCF-19, attendant care, and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to seek pre-approval for the psychiatric evaluation and that the charge for the OCF-19 was unreasonable.

Furthermore, the arbitrator found the applicant and his spouse lacked credibility, noting significant inconsistencies in their evidence and a failure to disclose relevant pre-existing medical conditions to assessors.

As the substantive claims were denied, claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The litigation guardian for a plaintiff previously declared a person under disability brought a motion under Rule 7.08 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking court approval of a settlement dismissing the action without costs.

The plaintiff opposed the settlement and sought removal of the litigation guardian, asserting he was no longer under disability.

The court reviewed psychiatric evidence and the plaintiff’s conduct during the proceedings and found he remained incapable of appreciating the reasonably foreseeable consequences of litigation decisions.

The court further concluded the proposed settlement was in the plaintiff’s best interests given limitation issues, weak evidentiary support, and significant litigation risk.

The motion to remove the litigation guardian was denied and the settlement was approved.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment under Rule 19.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure after the defendant was noted in default in a motor vehicle accident action.

The court found the defendant entirely liable for the collision and accepted evidence that the plaintiff suffered chronic pain, orthopedic injuries, and depression that significantly impaired his ability to perform flooring installation work.

The court held that the plaintiff met the statutory threshold under s. 267.5(3) of the Insurance Act for a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental or psychological function.

Non‑pecuniary damages were assessed at $65,000 before the statutory deductible, with additional awards for future housekeeping capacity, future medical expenses, and loss of future earning capacity.

Claims for past income loss and past housekeeping expenses were dismissed for lack of sufficient proof.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability after the respondent hospital failed to return her to work following a motor vehicle accident.

The application was filed up to nine years after the alleged incidents.

The applicant argued that her delay was incurred in good faith due to depression and cognitive difficulties.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable medical explanation for the delay, particularly given that she had actively pursued and settled related civil litigation during the same period.

The worker suffered a compensable right hand/forearm injury (carpal tunnel syndrome) and sought entitlement for chronic pain disability (CPD) and full loss of earnings (LOE) benefits.

The Appeals Resolution Officer denied the CPD claim, finding that the worker's pain in other areas was likely due to non-compensable neck and shoulder conditions, and that the criteria for CPD were not met.

However, the Officer granted full LOE benefits from April 26, 2009, to the start of the labour market re-entry program, as the employer could not provide suitable permanent modified work.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including income replacement benefits, supplementary medical benefits, and attendant care benefits.

The insurer terminated income replacement benefits, alleging the applicant failed to attend a medical examination and was malingering.

The arbitrator found that the insurer improperly terminated benefits before obtaining a Designated Assessment Centre report, entitling the applicant to benefits until the report's release.

However, the arbitrator concluded the applicant grossly exaggerated his physical and cognitive symptoms, relying on surveillance evidence and medical inconsistencies, and denied ongoing income replacement benefits.

The arbitrator also awarded limited supplementary medical and attendant care benefits, and a special award due to the insurer's unreasonable delay in initial payments and refusal to fund certain treatments.