Mary Vitali-Perrier

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 income replacement benefits (IRBs) and the cost of an attendant care assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits and sought to exclude late-served s. 44 catastrophic impairment reports.

The Tribunal admitted the reports, finding no prejudice to the respondent.

On the merits, the Tribunal found the accident was a necessary cause of the applicant's back pain and surgeries.

Relying on both the applicant's and the respondent's medical experts, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered significant psychological impairments, including a marked to extreme impairment in adaptation to work settings, rendering her completely unable to engage in suitable employment.

The Tribunal awarded the post-104 IRBs but denied the attendant care assessment cost due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove she suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as she was able to drive and travel internationally post-accident.

The Tribunal also denied attendant care benefits, preferring the respondent's detailed assessments over the applicant's unsupported occupational therapy assessment.

Claims for an award and interest were consequently dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The accident occurred in June 2011, and the plaintiff suffered a stroke one month later.

The action was commenced in July 2015.

The plaintiffs argued the limitation period was suspended due to the plaintiff's incapacity to commence a proceeding and that the claim was not discoverable until 2015 when a medical report causally linking the stroke to the accident was explained to her.

The court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding both the plaintiff's capacity to commence a proceeding and the date of discoverability, given conflicting medical evidence about her cognitive impairments.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed.