Dr. Kanagaratnam

The applicant was injured in a 2021 motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for psychological services, a catastrophic impairment assessment, and physiotherapy.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the psychological issues stemmed from prior 2017 accidents and the physical injuries had resolved.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant entitled to the psychological services and the catastrophic impairment assessment under Criterion 8, as the evidence showed the subject accident exacerbated his pre-existing psychological conditions.

However, the Tribunal denied the physiotherapy treatment plan, preferring the respondent's physiatrist's opinion that the soft tissue injuries had resolved and further formal treatment was not warranted.

Claims for a special award were dismissed, but interest was awarded on the overdue benefits.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment following a 2016 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold under Criterion 7, as his combined physical and psychological impairments totaled 42%.

However, the Tribunal concluded the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, finding marked impairments in three domains: social functioning, activities of daily living, and adaptation.

The Tribunal largely preferred the evidence of the applicant's neuropsychologist and mother over the insurer's assessors.

The applicant's request for costs due to alleged spoilage of evidence was denied.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a previous LAT decision that denied her motion to exclude four insurer's examination (IE) reports and found she was not entitled to post-104-week income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The applicant argued the adjudicator erred in law by misstating the test under s. 44(5)(a) of the Schedule and erred in fact by improperly weighing medical and surveillance evidence.

The adjudicator acknowledged a minor misstatement during oral reasons but concluded it would not have changed the outcome, as the collective correspondence provided sufficient medical reasons for the IEs.

The adjudicator also found no errors of fact in the weighing of evidence regarding the applicant's entitlement to IRBs.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident but was denied by the respondent insurer on the basis that the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The adjudicator excluded late-filed medical evidence from the applicant due to non-compliance with disclosure rules.

Relying on the insurer's examinations, the adjudicator found the applicant failed to prove the injuries warranted removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans and claims for interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to psychological injuries, non-earner benefits, treatment plans, and education expenses.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, preferring the respondent's psychiatric assessment which properly accounted for her significant pre-existing mental health conditions and post-accident stressors.

Claims for non-earner benefits and treatment plans were dismissed as the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life or the reasonableness and necessity of the plans.

The Tribunal granted the claim for education expenses, finding the applicant was unable to continue her college program due to the accident.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 weeks income replacement benefits (IRBs), arguing she suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's expert evidence, finding the applicant retained the functional capacity for sedentary work and did not meet the complete inability test.

The Tribunal also held that the respondent correctly deducted the applicant's maternity leave Employment Insurance benefits from her pre-104 weeks IRBs, as they constitute gross employment income under the Schedule.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed the claim for a special award, finding the respondent's handling of the claim and temporary stoppages of benefits pending further medical information were not unreasonable.

Following the settlement of a motor vehicle accident tort claim, the plaintiffs brought a motion for costs and an increase in the pre-judgment interest rate.

The court assessed the costs of the civil action, reducing the amount claimed to account for expenses incurred due to a trial adjournment requested by the plaintiffs.

The court also considered whether the tort defendant should contribute to the costs the plaintiffs incurred in parallel statutory accident benefits (SABs) proceedings, ultimately ordering a $20,000 contribution because the SABs settlements significantly reduced the defendant's tort exposure.

The plaintiffs' request to increase the pre-judgment interest rate to offset statutory deductible increases was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied treatment plans for a psychological assessment and psychological services, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued he suffered a psychological impairment removing him from the MIG and that the respondent failed to provide compliant notice under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant's injuries were predominately minor and he did not suffer a psychological impairment, preferring the respondent's psychological expert over the applicant's.

However, the Tribunal found the respondent was initially non-compliant with s. 38(8) notice requirements, entitling the applicant to payment for any expenses incurred during the non-compliance periods.

The treatment plans were otherwise found not reasonable or necessary, and the claim for an award under Regulation 664 was dismissed.

The defendant and statutory third party brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to attend in-person defence medical examinations, including physiatry assessments for both plaintiffs and a psychiatric assessment for one plaintiff, after the action had been set down for trial.

The court granted leave under Rule 48.04(1), finding that the plaintiffs' late delivery of numerous expert reports and medical records demonstrating a significant and unexpected deterioration in their conditions constituted a substantial change in circumstances.

The court ordered the plaintiffs to attend the requested examinations to ensure trial fairness and allow the defendants an adequate opportunity to meet the plaintiffs' case.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various statutory accident benefits, including attendant care, physiotherapy, and a psychological assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's impairments fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition or psychological impairment that would warrant removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the applicant was not entitled to the claimed treatment plans, attendant care benefits, or an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant sought to vary a previous arbitration order to increase his attendant care benefits to cover 24/7 care, alleging a material change in circumstances due to worsening mental and physical health following a 2003 motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate found that while the applicant's mental and behavioural disorders had worsened, constituting a material change, he was far less disabled than he presented.

Relying on surveillance evidence and the respondent's occupational therapist, the Delegate concluded that 24/7 care was not reasonable or necessary, as the applicant did not pose a danger to himself or others and demonstrated independent functionality.

The Delegate increased the attendant care benefits to $1,445.75 per month to account for increased emotional support and cuing needs, but dismissed the claim for a special award.

The applicant sought to vary a previous arbitration order to increase his attendant care benefits to provide for 24/7 care, alleging a material change in circumstances due to worsening mental and behavioral disorders following a 2003 motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate found a material change in circumstances based on a new anxiety disorder diagnosis and worsening psychological symptoms, but rejected the need for 24/7 care, relying on surveillance evidence and an occupational therapist's assessment showing the applicant was less disabled than claimed.

Attendant care benefits were increased to $1,445.75 per month to account for additional emotional support and cuing.

The claim for a special award was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought funding for a chronic pain treatment program.

The respondent insurer partially approved the plan for psychological treatment but denied the physical therapy and chronic pain components, relying on an insurer's examination.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant credible and preferred the evidence of his treating assessors, who diagnosed chronic pain syndrome caused by the accident.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay the remaining cost of the treatment plan, excluding transportation expenses, plus interest on overdue payments.

Following an arbitration where the insurer successfully defended all claims for statutory accident benefits, the insurer sought its expenses.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's conduct, including the late production of a voluminous ODSP file and changing the structure of the case mid-hearing, unnecessarily prolonged and hindered the proceedings.

Applying the principle of fairness and noting the consumer protection nature of the legislation, the arbitrator applied a 25% discount to the insurer's legal fees and excluded surveillance costs from disbursements.

The applicant was ordered to pay the insurer's expenses fixed at $52,167.11.

The appellant challenged the refusal of humanitarian and compassionate relief under s. 25(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act after unsuccessful refugee and risk-assessment proceedings.

The majority held that the officer unreasonably constrained discretion by treating 'unusual and undeserved or disproportionate hardship' as rigid legal thresholds rather than descriptive guidance.

The reasons emphasized holistic assessment, including mental health evidence, discrimination risk evidence, and the best interests of a directly affected child.

The appeal was allowed, the officer’s decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for reconsideration.

A dissent would have upheld the refusal as reasonable under a stringent but flexible exceptional-relief framework.

Two related actions arising from a motor vehicle accident involved disputes over defence medical examinations.

In the tort action, the defendant’s insurer sought a psychiatric defence medical examination, while in the separate action against the plaintiff’s own insurer the plaintiff sought an order that the same examination would serve both defendants.

The court held that the insurers were adverse in interest because each could attribute the plaintiff’s ongoing psychological condition to the other’s conduct, particularly in light of allegations that the insurer’s handling of accident benefits exacerbated the plaintiff’s injuries.

The court further held that adversity between co‑defendants is not a necessary precondition to separate defence medical examinations; the governing consideration is fairness in the adversarial process.

The third party insurer was permitted to conduct the psychiatric examination and the plaintiff’s motion to bind the other insurer to that examination was dismissed.