The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision denying her income replacement benefits and a treatment plan.
She argued procedural fairness was breached because the hearing was held by telephone rather than in person, minor injury guidelines were added without notice, medical records were not fairly evaluated, and the rule in Browne v. Dunn was not followed.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the telephone hearing, noting the appellant should have been aware of the MIG issue, and concluding the adjudicator reasonably evaluated the medical evidence.
