Dr. Parekh

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment (CAT) as a result of a motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to attendant care benefits and a special award for unreasonable delay.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the CAT threshold under Criterion 8, as she only demonstrated moderate, rather than marked, impairments in the spheres of functioning.

The claim for attendant care benefits was dismissed because the expenses were not incurred.

However, the Tribunal granted a special award under s. 10 of O. Reg. 664, finding that the respondent unreasonably delayed and withheld payment of income replacement benefits and treatment plans.

The respondent was ordered to pay an award equal to 25% of the delayed benefits.

The applicant sought judicial review of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she had not sustained a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle collision.

The applicant argued the Tribunal unreasonably rejected expert evidence that her accident-related sleep impairments resulted in a 9% whole person impairment rating.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal reasonably concluded there was a lack of causal evidence linking the sleep impairment to the accident and that the Tribunal's reasons were justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The plaintiff, Vida Mansori, brought a claim under the Occupiers' Liability Act after slipping and falling in a public washroom at a condominium building managed by the defendants.

The plaintiff suffered significant injuries.

The court considered expert evidence on the slip resistance of the washroom tiles and the defendants' maintenance schedule.

The court found that the washroom floor was not inherently unsafe and that the defendants had taken reasonable steps to ensure safety, including regular cleaning and security checks.

The court concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove negligence on the part of the defendants, dismissing the action.

Damages were provisionally assessed at $100,000 had liability been found.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she had not sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made errors of law and fact, including typographical errors regarding medical reports and errors in assessing a 9% whole person impairment rating for sleep impairment provided by a neurologist.

The Tribunal dismissed the request, finding that the typographical errors were inconsequential and would not have changed the result.

Furthermore, the Tribunal held it did not err in rejecting the sleep impairment rating, as the rejection was based on inconsistent reporting and a lack of causal evidence linking the impairment to the accident.

The applicant sought a catastrophic impairment designation under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural impairments) following a 2015 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued she sustained marked impairments in concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including her own testimony and her assessors' reports, lacked objective testing and failed to account for significant pre-existing psychological issues and unrelated physical degeneration.

Preferring the respondent's multidisciplinary and objective assessments, the Tribunal concluded the applicant demonstrated adaptability and sustained functionality in her daily life, college attendance, and household management.

The application for catastrophic impairment designation was dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a 2018 motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found the applicant did not meet the threshold for catastrophic impairment under either criterion 7 (whole person impairment) or criterion 8 (mental or behavioural impairment), rejecting the impairment ratings proposed by her assessors due to a lack of objective evidence and causal connection to the accident.

However, the Tribunal concluded that a $13,386.90 multidisciplinary chronic pain program was reasonable and necessary to address the applicant's ongoing pain-related complaints.

The claims for psychological services, a neuropsychology assessment, and transportation expenses were dismissed as the applicant failed to provide submissions or meet her evidentiary burden.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that found she was not catastrophically impaired and not entitled to attendant care benefits or a special award.

The applicant argued the initial decision lacked adequate reasons, constituting a breach of procedural fairness and an error of law.

The Vice-Chair dismissed the request, finding that the initial adjudicator's reasons meaningfully grappled with the key issues and evidence, including the competing expert reports on catastrophic impairment and attendant care.

The Tribunal concluded there was no error of law, fact, or breach of procedural fairness that would warrant a reconsideration.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7.

The respondent denied a treatment plan for a catastrophic impairment assessment, arguing the issue was res judicata based on a prior Tribunal decision.

The Tribunal found res judicata did not apply as the current treatment plan was new.

On the merits, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's medical evidence that the applicant's spinal stenosis and resulting physical impairments were caused by pre-existing degenerative changes rather than the accident.

As the physical impairments were not accident-related, the applicant could not meet the 55% whole person impairment threshold.

The application for a catastrophic impairment assessment and interest was dismissed.

The applicant sought various medical, rehabilitation, and attendant care benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing that the applicant's needs stemmed from extensive pre-existing medical conditions, including Parkinson's disease and dementia, rather than the soft tissue injuries sustained in the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed all claims, finding that the applicant failed to prove the requested benefits and assessments were reasonable and necessary or causally related to the accident.

Claims for interest and an award for unreasonable delay were also dismissed.