Ranu Singh

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2015 motor vehicle accident, specifically claiming attendant care benefits (ACB) for services provided by her daughter and husband.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to prove the services were 'incurred' under s. 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The evidence lacked sufficient detail regarding the daughter's hours and tasks, and failed to establish that either family member sustained an economic loss as a result of providing care.

Consequently, claims for interest and a special award were also dismissed.

The respondent insurer brought a motion under s. 55 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule to bar the applicant's proceeding for attendant care benefits, alleging she failed to attend three insurer's examinations (IEs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant only failed to attend one properly scheduled IE, as the respondent had cancelled the other two.

Although the notice for the missed IE contained sufficient medical reasons, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under s. 55 to permit the application to proceed, noting the applicant had since been deemed catastrophically impaired and was willing to attend rescheduled IEs.

The Tribunal ordered a timetable for the applicant to attend an IE rather than barring or staying the application.

The applicant, who was catastrophically impaired following a motor vehicle accident, sought statutory accident benefits for home modifications and assistive devices.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to $8,960.22 for assistive devices, including a wheelchair and a specialized mattress, as they were reasonable and necessary to improve her independence and manage pain.

However, claims for a housing assessment balance and architectural drawings were dismissed, as the insurer had already paid the maximum allowable for the assessment, and the drawings were premature without an approved home modification plan.

The claim for an award under O. Reg. 664 was also dismissed.