Dr. Payne

The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and a special award under Regulation 664 following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's impairments were based on subjective complaints and her evidence was unreliable.

The Tribunal found the applicant credible and determined she suffered a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment as a gas bar attendant, entitling her to pre-104 week IRBs.

However, the Tribunal dismissed her claim for post-104 week IRBs, finding she failed to prove a complete inability to engage in suitable employment, as she had successfully worked part-time jobs post-accident and failed to prove her subsequent surgeries were accident-related.

The claim for a Regulation 664 award was also dismissed, as the insurer's delay in obtaining addendum reports was not unreasonable given the applicant's delay in providing requested documents.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident in November 2016 and sought statutory accident benefits from the respondent insurer.

The insurer denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from chronic pain syndrome and a specific driving-related phobia caused by the 2016 accident, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's claims for a physiotherapy treatment plan and a psychological assessment, finding them reasonable and necessary, but denied a claim for occupational therapy services.

The applicant was also awarded interest on overdue benefits.

Following an arbitration decision regarding statutory accident benefits where the applicant achieved a greater degree of success, the applicant sought expenses.

The arbitrator considered the criteria under the Insurance Act and the Dispute Resolution Practice Code, noting the insurer's failure to respond to settlement offers and refusal to engage in settlement discussions.

The arbitrator awarded the applicant expenses fixed at $12,037.37, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for court approval of a settlement reached on behalf of two infant plaintiffs, who were claimants under the Family Law Act following their father's car accident.

The court identified several deficiencies in the evidence, including the lack of a breakdown between damages and pre-judgment interest, unclear plans for the settlement funds, conflicting information regarding the family's living situation, and an apparent undervaluation of the infant plaintiffs' claims for loss of care, guidance, and companionship.

The court also noted the absence of recommended neuropsychological and in-home assessment reports.

Consequently, the court was unable to approve the settlement and ordered counsel to appear in court for further directions.

The Crown appealed a conditional sentence imposed after convictions for four counts of trafficking in a substantial quantity of heroin.

The majority held that the sentencing judge gave excessive weight to the respondent's psychological condition and erred by treating treatment of that condition as central to rehabilitation absent evidence connecting it to the offences.

While the respondent's history of torture and resulting post-traumatic stress disorder justified some reduction from the usual range, a community-based sentence was held unavailable for this level of heroin trafficking.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conditional sentence and probation order, and substituted a six-year penitentiary sentence.

The intervenor's motion to introduce fresh evidence on electronic monitoring was dismissed.