Lisa Jackson

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming substantial post-accident business losses from her self-employment as a pet store owner.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits and sought repayment of an alleged overpayment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the quantum of her income replacement benefits, as her claimed business losses were unsupported by documentary evidence and not proven to be caused by the accident.

The Tribunal also dismissed the respondent's claim for repayment, finding its accounting evidence lacked sufficient detail to establish the overpayment calculation.

Both claims were dismissed.

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

The respondent initially paid benefits based on reported employment but terminated them after an insurer's examination and due to outstanding information regarding other alleged employment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence regarding his pre- and post-accident income, including tax returns and banking records, was inconsistent, unverified, and incomplete.

Preferring the evidence of the respondent's forensic accountant, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to meet his onus to provide reliable information upon which an income replacement benefit could be calculated.

The application was dismissed.