Dr. Nemeth

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments allegedly sustained as a result of her mother's involvement in a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed entitlement to four treatment plans (OCF-18s) for vocational, academic, social rehabilitation, and psychological services.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to address any accident-related impairments.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant's post-accident complaints were not significantly different from her pre-accident mental health and well-being.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments allegedly resulting from her mother's motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed entitlement to social rehabilitation counselling and vocational/academic counselling.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological symptoms were primarily related to pre-existing factors, including her parents' separation and the loss of her grandfather, rather than the accident.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant failed to prove the proposed treatment plans were reasonable and necessary to address accident-related impairments.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for psychological impairments allegedly sustained after her mother was injured in a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed entitlement to three treatment plans for social rehabilitation and vocational/academic counselling.

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to prove the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting that her pre-existing psychological issues and family circumstances were the primary cause of her impairments, and that her accident-related symptoms had resolved.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care, physiotherapy, psychological services, occupational therapy, and medication costs.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's chronic pain and major depressive disorders were pre-existing conditions and not caused by the accident.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's psychiatric expert evidence because it relied on unreliable self-reporting that contradicted pre-accident medical records showing ongoing opioid and antidepressant use.

In a post-hearing motion, the Tribunal ordered the applicant to pay expert witness fees under Tariff A of the Rules of Civil Procedure to three insurer examination assessors whom the applicant had summoned to testify.

The applicant, a minor, was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The insurer denied the treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was removed from the Minor Injury Guideline due to psychological impairments.

The Tribunal held that the treatment plans for massage therapy, chiropractic treatment, physiotherapy, and optometric services were reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's ongoing pain and post-concussion symptoms.

However, the Tribunal denied the plans for occupational therapy and social work services, finding them redundant as the applicant had been recommended to participate in a comprehensive hospital pain management program that would adequately address those needs.

Interest was awarded on the approved benefits.

The defendant brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act arguing the injured plaintiff had not sustained a permanent serious impairment of an important physical, mental, or psychological function following a motor vehicle collision.

Conflicting medical evidence was presented regarding chronic pain, psychiatric impairment, and the causal connection between the collision and the plaintiff’s symptoms.

The court accepted expert evidence linking facet joint injuries and chronic pain to the accident and found the plaintiff’s condition substantially interfered with his ability to perform the heavy physical duties of his construction business.

The court also rejected suggestions that the plaintiff was malingering.

The plaintiff met the statutory threshold for non‑pecuniary damages.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits.

The insurer suspended his income replacement benefits after an insurer's psychological assessment was terminated prematurely.

The insurer argued the applicant abruptly left, while the applicant claimed the assessor was harsh and unaccommodating.

The arbitrator found that the assessor created an insensitive and critical atmosphere, which precipitated the termination of the assessment.

The arbitrator concluded that the assessment was not a reasonable examination to which the applicant should be required to submit, and that he had a reasonable excuse for refusing further assessment with that specific doctor.

The suspension of benefits was lifted, and the applicant was permitted to proceed to arbitration.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

Following a denial by the insurer, the applicant sought interim income replacement benefits and funding for a work-hardening programme pending the final arbitration hearing.

The arbitrator conducted an extensive review of the jurisprudence regarding interim orders under section 279(4.1) of the Insurance Act, rejecting the strict application of injunction tests such as 'irreparable harm' and 'prima facie case.' Instead, the arbitrator applied a holistic approach focused on the consumer protection mandate of the legislation.

Finding that the applicant's uncontradicted evidence and the medical reports supported the need for a transitional work programme, the arbitrator granted the interim benefits and ordered the insurer to fund the programme.

The request for an interim special award was deferred to the final hearing.