Karla Cassidy

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following an incident where she was assaulted by her husband while driving, causing her to veer off the road and mount a curb.

The Tribunal found that the incident met the definition of an "accident" under s. 3(1) of the Schedule, as the operation of the vehicle was the dominant feature causing her psychological injuries, which exacerbated pre-existing conditions.

Consequently, the applicant's injuries were removed from the Minor Injury Guideline.

However, the applicant's claims for an income replacement benefit, various treatment plans, attendant care benefits, and a special award were dismissed because she failed to provide sufficient medical evidence or establish that the expenses were reasonable, necessary, and incurred.

The insurer applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for repayment of income replacement benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, independent examination costs, and investigation costs, alleging the respondent staged the motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the accident was staged, relying on expert evidence that the vehicle damage was caused by a tow truck stinger rather than a rear-end collision.

The respondent was ordered to repay the income replacement and medical/rehabilitation benefits with interest under section 52 of the Schedule.

However, the adjudicator held that the Schedule does not provide for the repayment of insurer examination or investigation costs, and declined to award them as costs under Rule 19.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a sideswipe motor vehicle collision, claiming entitlement to an income replacement benefit, various medical and rehabilitation treatment plans, and a special award.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her employment and that the proposed treatments were not reasonable or necessary.

The Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety, preferring the evidence of the respondent's experts who found no objective pathology, noted significant self-limiting and non-credible behaviour on validity testing, and concluded the collision forces were insufficient to cause the alleged mild traumatic brain injury.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed as the respondent's adjusting was found to be reasonable.

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

The respondent insurer denied the claims and sought a preliminary determination on whether an 'accident' occurred and whether the applicant wilfully misrepresented material facts.

The applicant failed to attend the hearing.

Relying on engineering reports and crash data retrieval showing the other vehicle was parked and the applicant's airbags did not deploy, the adjudicator found the collision was a staged accident.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant was not involved in an 'accident' under s. 3(1) of the Schedule, wilfully misrepresented material facts, and ordered the applicant to repay $558.55 in benefits.

The defendants, Bryan Watt and Bruce E. Smith Ltd., brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims and all crossclaims against them arising from a three-vehicle collision on the QEW.

The moving parties relied on expert evidence suggesting the defendant driver's reaction time was reasonable.

The plaintiffs relied on competing expert evidence suggesting the accident was avoidable.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the conflicting factual evidence and competing expert opinions regarding perception-response time and looming required a full trial to resolve.