Dr. Robert van Reekum

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sustained a severe traumatic brain injury.

He applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal after the respondent insurer denied his claims for catastrophic impairment, post-104 week income replacement benefits, and various treatment plans.

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 4, as his GOS-E assessment demonstrated a Lower Moderate Disability due to his inability to work and constant disruption to relationships.

The Tribunal also awarded post-104 week income replacement benefits, finding the applicant completely unable to engage in suitable employment due to cognitive and emotional impairments.

The claims for treatment plans were dismissed as the applicant failed to make submissions on their reasonableness and necessity.

The applicant, who was struck by a vehicle at age six, sought non-earner benefits (NEBs) upon turning 16.

The insurer paid NEBs for seven months before terminating them following an insurer's examination.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove he suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, as he successfully completed school, played competitive sports, and worked as a general labourer.

The application for NEBs and interest was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a cyclist with significant pre-existing psychological and cognitive vulnerabilities, was struck by a police cruiser while riding through a pedestrian crosswalk at night.

The court apportioned liability 60% to the defendant police officer and 40% to the plaintiff.

Applying the thin skull rule, the court found the collision exacerbated the plaintiff's pre-existing conditions and caused a mild traumatic brain injury, rendering him completely disabled and requiring 24/7 attendant care.

Total damages were assessed at over $5.2 million, reduced to $3,131,370 after accounting for contributory negligence.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed a severe psychiatric disorder, regressing to a child-like state.

She applied for catastrophic impairment designation and various statutory accident benefits, which the insurer denied, arguing her condition was pre-existing and unrelated to the accident.

The arbitrator preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating physicians and experts, finding that the accident materially contributed to her regressed state and that she suffered a catastrophic impairment.

The applicant was awarded post-104 week attendant care, housekeeping, and income replacement benefits, along with interest and arbitration expenses.

The insurer's claim for repayment of a without prejudice advance was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including loss of earning capacity benefits, attendant care, and housekeeping.

The insurer terminated benefits based on a DAC report that relied on surveillance video to conclude the applicant was not disabled.

The arbitrator rejected the insurer's argument that the applicant was malingering, accepting expert evidence that she suffered a traumatic brain injury resulting in severe major depression.

The arbitrator found the applicant was substantially unable to perform the essential tasks of her employment and awarded the claimed benefits, along with interest and arbitration expenses.

The applicant, a pedestrian, was struck by a car and sustained physical injuries and a traumatic brain injury.

He subsequently developed bipolar affective disorder.

The insurer terminated his weekly non-income benefits.

The arbitrator found that the applicant's psychiatric illness was caused by the accident and that he was substantially unable to perform his essential tasks for the period up to 156 weeks post-accident, entitling him to benefits under s. 13(1) of the Schedule.

However, the arbitrator concluded the applicant did not meet the stricter test under s. 13(8) for benefits beyond 156 weeks, as he was not continuously prevented from engaging in substantially all of his normal activities.

The claim for a special award was dismissed as the insurer's termination of benefits was not unreasonable.