Dr. MacKay

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2016 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, as she failed to establish that her psychological impairments would not have occurred 'but for' the accident, noting a significant time gap and high level of functioning in the intervening years.

The Tribunal granted entitlement to several treatment plans for occupational therapy, assistive devices, and assessments incurred prior to the 260-week mark, but denied plans submitted after that period and denied the claim for living accommodations due to non-compliance with section 38(2) of the Schedule.

The claim for a special award was also dismissed.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision finding she did not sustain a catastrophic impairment from a motor vehicle accident.

The appellant argued the adjudicator misapplied the 'but for' test for causation regarding her psychological and behavioural impairments.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the adjudicator correctly applied the legal test for causation and that her conclusions were factual findings supported by the evidence.

The court also upheld the adjudicator's finding that the appellant failed to prove a marked impairment in three spheres of functioning.

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

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment as a forklift driver.

The medical evidence, including insurer's examinations, indicated normal physical function and independence in daily activities.

Furthermore, the applicant had declared to the Canada Revenue Agency that he stopped working due to the COVID-19 pandemic and received government benefits, undermining his claim that his inability to work was accident-related.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle collision and sought statutory accident benefits, including a chiropractic treatment plan.

The insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were minor and that she failed to provide compelling evidence of a psychological impairment or that her pre-existing conditions would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG limit.

As the MIG limits were exhausted, the application for the treatment plan and interest was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for physical and psychological treatment.

The respondent insurer denied two treatment plans on the basis of an insurer's examination that concluded the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the treatment plans reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the treating psychologist and other insurer's examiners who noted ongoing pain and psychological disturbance over the physician who erroneously applied the MIG.

The applicant was awarded the claimed medical benefits plus interest.

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

The insurer denied certain benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that while the applicant did not establish a psychological impairment, she did prove on a balance of probabilities that she suffered from chronic pain as a result of the accident, which removed her from the MIG.

Consequently, the Tribunal approved a disputed physiotherapy treatment plan as reasonable and necessary, but denied a psychological assessment.

Interest was awarded on overdue payments.