Dr. Ken Scapinello

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for ongoing benefits.

The insurer argued the application was statute-barred, but the Tribunal found it was commenced within the applicable time limits.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility, noting he had returned to work as a superintendent for two different employers without disclosing this to the insurer or his own doctors.

Relying on the insurer's assessors and the applicant's employment records, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment and dismissed the application.

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

The insurer terminated IRBs on April 15, 2014.

The Tribunal first determined that the application was not statute-barred, as the applicant was caught in the transition period between FSCO and the LAT.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the applicant lacked credibility, noting documentary evidence that he had returned to work as a superintendent for two different employers during the period he claimed to be substantially unable to work.

Relying on the insurer's expert assessments and the applicant's employment records, the Tribunal concluded the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his employment.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in August 2005.

Nine months later, she suffered severe disc herniations resulting in a cauda equina-like syndrome and a conversion disorder.

The insurer denied ongoing income replacement and attendant care benefits, arguing the disc herniations were not causally related to the accident.

The arbitrator found that the accident materially contributed to the disc herniations and the subsequent conversion disorder.

However, the arbitrator concluded the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, as her combined physical (21%) and mental/behavioural (28%) whole person impairment rating was 43%, falling short of the 55% threshold.

The applicant was awarded an ongoing income replacement benefit and attendant care benefits capped at $3,000 per month for the 104-week period following the accident.

In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision where liability was admitted and damages remained in issue, the plaintiff moved to exclude evidence from experts who prepared accident benefits reports for the plaintiff’s insurer.

The plaintiff argued the reports were irrelevant, non-compliant with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, prejudicial to trial fairness, and duplicative.

The court held that although the experts had not signed the Form 53 acknowledgement required under Rule 53.03(2.1), the rule applied even to experts retained by non-parties and the non‑compliance could be cured by granting leave subject to obtaining the acknowledgement.

The court found portions of the reports remained relevant to the plaintiff’s cognitive, emotional, and physical condition at an intermediate stage following the accident, though opinions on employability were excluded as no longer relevant.

The motion to exclude the expert evidence was dismissed, subject to conditions.