3 total
LAT decision denying catastrophic impairment quashed due to insufficient reasons and ignoring expert medical evidence.
The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision denying his application for a catastrophic impairment designation and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.
The Divisional Court found that the LAT adjudicator's reasons were inadequate, conclusory, and failed to account for extensive expert medical evidence regarding the appellant's traumatic brain injury.
The court held that the adjudicator made factual findings without evidentiary support, particularly regarding the appellant's volunteer activities.
The appeal was granted, the LAT decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted for a fresh hearing before a different adjudicator.
Post-104 IRBs awarded; part-time mail delivery not comparable to pre-accident intercity bus driving.
The applicant, an intercity bus driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought post-104 income replacement benefits (IRBs).
The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's return to part-time work as a mail courier demonstrated she did not suffer a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's cognitive decline, photophobia, and reduced stamina rendered her unable to perform the highly responsible duties of an intercity bus driver.
Relying on the applicant's recent neurological and neuropsychological assessments, the Tribunal concluded her condition had deteriorated over time and she met the post-104 test as of September 27, 2023.
The applicant was awarded IRBs from that date onward, plus interest.
Plaintiff awarded $852,528 in costs and a $125,000 management fee following a personal injury trial.
The plaintiff was awarded over $1.1 million in damages following a personal injury trial.
The parties appeared before the court to determine the costs of the trial and the calculation of a management fee.
The court found that the plaintiff had made reasonable offers to settle that were more favourable than the judgment, entitling her to elevated costs.
The court awarded the plaintiff $852,528.03 in costs and disbursements, and fixed the management fee at $125,000 based on an annualized sliding scale rather than a fixed percentage.