Dr. Khumbare

Aviva sought reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision regarding P.R.'s entitlement to an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident.

Aviva argued the Tribunal made factual errors in finding P.R. was entitled to ongoing IRB and calculation errors regarding the quantum and overpayment.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request regarding ongoing entitlement, finding no significant errors of fact that would change the result.

However, the Vice-Chair granted the request in part to correct calculation errors, adjusting the weekly IRB rate to $400 and reducing the overpayment amount owed to Aviva from $7,885.31 to $7,193.31.

The plaintiff brought an action for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.

Following a jury verdict that resulted in net zero damages due to deductibles and prior settlements, the court ruled on the defence's threshold motion.

The court preferred the evidence of the plaintiff's experts, finding that the plaintiff suffered from chronic pain syndrome caused by the accident.

The court concluded that the plaintiff sustained a permanent and serious impairment of an important function, thereby meeting the statutory threshold, despite the action ultimately being dismissed.

Following a jury trial for a motor vehicle accident where the plaintiff was awarded substantial damages, the defendant insurer brought a motion for a ruling that the plaintiff's claims did not meet the statutory threshold under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the plaintiff's chronic low back pain was caused by the accident and constituted a permanent serious impairment of an important physical function.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, concluding that the plaintiff met the statutory threshold for non-pecuniary loss and future care costs.