Dr. Luczak

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

The respondent suspended income replacement benefits after the applicant failed to provide requested financial and tax documents.

The Tribunal found that the requested documents were reasonably required under s. 33(1) of the Schedule to verify pre- and post-accident income, and upheld the suspension of benefits.

The Tribunal also approved treatment plans for physiotherapy and partial payment for physiatry and neurological assessments, finding them reasonable and necessary based on the applicant's ongoing chronic pain and concussion symptoms.

The applicant's claim for a special award was dismissed as the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable.

The appellant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident.

The central issue was the correct interpretation of the test for post-104-week IRBs under section 6(2)(b) of the Schedule.

The appellant argued that the test requires consideration of employment in a competitive, real-world setting comparable in nature, status, and remuneration to the insured's former employment.

The respondent insurer argued that the statutory test does not include such requirements.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts' decisions, holding that while factors such as competitive real-world setting, status, and remuneration are relevant considerations in the evidence-based analysis, they are not stand-alone requirements of the test.

The appellant failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, particularly given evidence that wedding planning remained a viable option.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment and medical benefits for psychological and physiotherapy treatment, following a 2014 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's psychological issues were pre-existing and unrelated to the accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proof, as he presented no medical evidence to support his claims, while the respondent's expert evidence established that his psychiatric condition predated the accident.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a Request for Reconsideration of a Tribunal decision that denied her claim for post-104 week income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The applicant argued that the adjudicator made significant errors of law and fact by misapprehending the evidence regarding her volunteer work, wedding planning activities, and medical limitations, and that the decision violated procedural fairness.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the adjudicator had properly weighed the evidence, including the applicant's post-accident activities and the medical reports.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to demonstrate a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, and that no error was made that would have led to a different result.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought enhanced statutory accident benefits, claiming she suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The arbitrator found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under section 2(1.2)(g) of the Schedule, as she suffered a marked impairment in the area of adaptation due to a major depressive disorder.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychological expert over the insurer's expert, noting the former's comprehensive review of medical records and adherence to the AMA Guides.

The applicant was awarded ongoing income replacement benefits, having established a complete inability to engage in suitable employment due to chronic pain and medication side effects.

The arbitrator also awarded housekeeping benefits, specific periods of attendant care benefits, and approved several treatment plans.

A special award of 20% was ordered against the insurer for unreasonably delaying the assessment and payment of pre-104 week attendant care benefits following the applicant's surgery.