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.
Catastrophic impairment and attendant care benefits denied; applicant demonstrated high cognitive and physical function post-accident.
The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident that resulted in a traumatic brain injury.
The central issue was whether the applicant's brain injury restricted his ability to work such that he met the criteria for catastrophic impairment under the GOS-E Guideline.
The Tribunal found that the applicant was capable of working in a reduced capacity, as evidenced by his post-accident construction work and his role teaching martial arts to children, and therefore did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment.
The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for attendant care benefits, finding the applicant to be highly functional both physically and cognitively, and denied the claim for interest.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's finding of a resulting trust over the matrimonial home and dismissed the appeal.
The appellant appealed a trial judgment settling the division of matrimonial property following a marriage breakdown.
The central issue was whether the respondent was a beneficial owner of the matrimonial home held solely in the appellant's name.
The trial judge found the respondent was a beneficial owner based on the parties' pattern of joint financial ventures in real estate.
The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding beneficial ownership, in denying an adjournment request, in failing to assist her as a self-represented litigant, and in refusing an unequal division of net family property.
The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.