Dr. P. Miller

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) beyond the 104-week mark.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits, arguing the applicant was able to return to work, and sought repayment for IRBs paid during a brief period when the applicant attempted to work.

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to engage in employment for which he was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience, given his history of heavy labour and ongoing physical and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal held that the applicant's unsuccessful attempts to return to work did not disentitle him to IRBs, but rather entitled the respondent to deduct 70% of his post-accident earnings.

The applicant was awarded ongoing IRBs with interest, and the respondent's claim for repayment was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to attend and complete a defence neuropsychological examination.

The plaintiff, who suffered catastrophic impairment in a motor vehicle accident, had attempted the assessment on three occasions but was unable to complete it due to severe headaches, fatigue, and psychological distress.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff was not malingering and that compelling further testing would be futile and pose an undue risk of self-harm.

The court also adjourned the pre-trial to allow the defendants time to review newly filed expert reports.