Ms. Leslie Hisey

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident, claiming entitlement under Criteria 6, 7, and 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment, preferring the respondent's multidisciplinary assessments which were supported by objective evidence, including surveillance footage and employment records showing the applicant had returned to full-time work.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claims for the outstanding balance of a catastrophic impairment assessment plan, finding that clinical file reviews were subject to the $2,000 cap per assessment and that transportation expenses were not proven to exceed the 50-kilometre deductible.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable withholding of benefits were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 (mental and behavioural impairments) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a 2019 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychiatric expert over the respondent's expert, finding the applicant suffered marked impairments in all four spheres of functioning: activities of daily living, social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was catastrophically impaired.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the respondent's adjusting conduct was not unreasonable, excessive, or imprudent.

The applicant sought non-earner benefits and a treatment plan for psychological and neuropsychological assessments following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's limitations were due to pre-existing conditions, including multiple sclerosis, and that he did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal found the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of his pre-accident activities or objective medical evidence to refute the respondent's insurer's examinations.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant was not entitled to the non-earner benefits, the treatment plan, interest, or an award for unreasonable delay.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit, a special award, and interest following a motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant's testimony regarding his post-accident impairments and inability to work lacked credibility, noting social media evidence suggesting he owned and operated a restaurant during the disputed period.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical experts, who consistently concluded the applicant did not suffer a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.