R. Van Reekum

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied her claim for outstanding attendant care benefits, and also brought a motion for the adjudicator to recuse himself due to alleged bias.

The Tribunal dismissed the recusal motion, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias or institutional bias.

However, the Tribunal granted the reconsideration request in part, finding a material breach of procedural fairness because the adjudicator had reframed the issues by failing to determine the reasonable and necessary quantum of the attendant care benefit, which had been an issue at the initial hearing.

Rehearing the issue based on the existing record, the Tribunal weighed competing occupational therapy assessments and concluded the applicant was entitled to an attendant care benefit of $1,962.55 per month on an ongoing basis.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently developed a severe neurocognitive disorder, rendering her incapable of caring for herself.

She sought statutory accident benefits, including a determination of catastrophic impairment, income replacement benefits, and attendant care benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's dementia pre-dated the accident and was not caused by it.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the accident materially contributed to the onset and rapid acceleration of the applicant's neurocognitive disorder.

The Tribunal held that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under criterion 8 (mental and behavioural impairment) and awarded income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits up to $6,000 per month, and specific medical treatment plans, along with interest.

Claims for an award under section 10 and costs were dismissed.

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 applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including attendant care benefits, housekeeping and home maintenance, multiple treatment plans, medical cannabis, and botox injections.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application in its entirety.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's claims for attendant care and housekeeping were inconsistent with her pre- and post-accident level of function, noting she continued to work full-time and her family performed most household chores.

The requested treatment plans and medical expenses were deemed not reasonable and necessary, as they were unsupported by the contemporaneous medical evidence and the applicant failed to provide adequate information to the insurer.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed as no benefits were overdue.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder.

The Tribunal applied the Pastore test and found that the applicant suffered from class 4 (marked) impairments in activities of daily living, social functioning, and adaptation, meeting the threshold for catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal also awarded $4,077.72 in attendant care benefits with interest, but dismissed the claim for a special award under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding the insurer did not unreasonably withhold payments.

The defendants, Fowler Construction Company Limited and The Corporation of the City of Toronto, brought a motion under Rule 33.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to compel the plaintiff, Tennisha Pulford, to attend a defence neuropsychological examination.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the motion lacked evidence and sought to corroborate a deficient prior expert opinion.

The court granted the motion, emphasizing the principle of "trial fairness" and the need for "matching reports" from experts in the same specialty, particularly given the plaintiff's assertion of cognitive and neurological damage.

Despite a noted deficiency in the defendants' supporting evidence, the court found the need for the examination outweighed this, and that it would not delay the trial.

No costs were awarded due to the evidence deficiency.

The applicant, a registered nurse, was struck by a school bus and claimed catastrophic impairment due to physical, cognitive, and psychological injuries.

The insurer disputed the catastrophic designation and denied ongoing attendant care and housekeeping benefits.

The arbitrator found the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under both the marked mental/behavioural impairment threshold and the 55% whole person impairment threshold, preferring the evidence of the applicant's experts who properly accounted for her severe depression and chronic pain.

The arbitrator awarded ongoing attendant care, housekeeping benefits, the cost of a cellphone, and a special award due to the insurer's unreasonable delay in reinstating income replacement benefits.