3 total
Request for reconsideration of IRB denial dismissed as the Tribunal made no errors of fact or law.
The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her entitlement to income replacement benefits (IRBs) beyond 104 weeks post-accident.
The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of fact and law by disregarding the expert evidence of a psychologist and ignoring the clinical notes of her treating psychologist and optometrist.
The adjudicator dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal correctly weighed the expert evidence, which failed to provide an analysis of the applicant's ability to work.
The adjudicator also held that the Tribunal's failure to explicitly refer to certain clinical notes did not constitute an error, and that the omitted evidence would not have changed the outcome regarding the applicant's entitlement to IRBs.
Applicant entitled to income replacement benefits for first 104 weeks but not beyond; some assistive devices approved.
The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.
The Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to income replacement benefits for the first 104 weeks post-accident, as she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a personal support worker.
However, she was not entitled to income replacement benefits beyond 104 weeks, as she failed to prove a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited.
The Tribunal also partially approved a treatment plan for assistive devices, but denied other treatment plans for occupational therapy, rehabilitative therapy, and a massage therapy assessment.
The applicant's request for costs was denied.
Accident benefits experts permitted to testify despite Rule 53.03 non‑compliance.
In a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle collision where liability was admitted and damages remained in issue, the plaintiff moved to exclude evidence from experts who prepared accident benefits reports for the plaintiff’s insurer.
The plaintiff argued the reports were irrelevant, non-compliant with Rule 53.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, prejudicial to trial fairness, and duplicative.
The court held that although the experts had not signed the Form 53 acknowledgement required under Rule 53.03(2.1), the rule applied even to experts retained by non-parties and the non‑compliance could be cured by granting leave subject to obtaining the acknowledgement.
The court found portions of the reports remained relevant to the plaintiff’s cognitive, emotional, and physical condition at an intermediate stage following the accident, though opinions on employability were excluded as no longer relevant.
The motion to exclude the expert evidence was dismissed, subject to conditions.
