Ms. Wilson

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.

The applicant sought Non-Earner Benefits (NEBs) and Attendant Care Benefits (ACBs) following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal dismissed the claim for NEBs, finding the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life, noting surveillance evidence showing she could still drive, perform personal care, and shop.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim for ACBs, finding the requested 90 hours per month was not reasonable or necessary given her demonstrated functionality, and the expenses were not incurred.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.