Dr. Ron Kaplan

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including psychological services, cardiac rehabilitation, and provider mileage.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant was entitled to $2,200 for a psychological assessment, as both the applicant's and respondent's psychologists diagnosed accident-related psychological conditions.

However, the Tribunal denied the request for a neuropsychological assessment due to a lack of corroborating medical evidence of cognitive impairment.

The Tribunal also denied the claims for cardiac rehabilitation, finding no cardiac indication for supervised exercise, and denied the claims for provider mileage and PPE as they are not payable under the Schedule.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Director's Delegate, which overturned an Arbitrator's finding that he suffered a catastrophic impairment as a result of a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The applicant had previously been involved in two accidents in 2002.

The Director's Delegate found that the applicant was already catastrophically impaired before the 2013 accident and that the Arbitrator erred by applying the material contribution test instead of the 'but for' test.

The Divisional Court granted the judicial review, finding the Director's Delegate's decision unreasonable because it relied on an unestablished fact that the applicant was already catastrophically impaired.

The Court also held that the Arbitrator's use of the material contribution test was appropriate in circumstances involving multiple accidents where it is impossible to determine which accident caused the impairment.

The applicant, an incarcerated veteran with severe pre-existing spinal stenosis, sought statutory accident benefits following two prisoner transfers in unpadded, unrestrained vehicles.

The respondent insurer denied the claims, arguing the events were not 'incidents' and the dominant feature of the impairment was the applicant's pre-existing condition, not the use or operation of an automobile.

The Tribunal found that the events were 'incidents' under a purposive interpretation of the Schedule, noting the applicant was shackled and unable to brace himself.

Applying the Greenhalgh test, the Tribunal concluded the use and operation of the vehicles were the dominant feature and a direct cause of the exacerbation of the applicant's pain.

The preliminary issue was resolved in the applicant's favour, allowing the substantive claims to proceed.