Dr. S. Ali

The applicant, who sustained catastrophic mental and behavioural impairments in a motor vehicle accident, sought various medical and rehabilitation benefits, home modifications, and a special award.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal partially approved the treatment plans, allowing funding for physiotherapy, exercise programs, and specific assistive devices that promoted independence, such as a Nespresso machine and slip-on shoes.

However, claims for chiropractic care, massage therapy, a laptop, and a lift chair were denied for lack of medical recommendation or inconsistency with the applicant's demonstrated functionality.

The tribunal also dismissed the claim for over $1.1 million in home modifications and an accessible apartment lease, relying on surveillance evidence showing the applicant could independently traverse stairs.

The request for a special award under section 10 of Regulation 664 was denied, as the insurer's investigation into overlapping attendant care benefits was deemed reasonable.

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder following an ATV accident.

The central issue was whether she suffered a marked impairment in the domain of adaptation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological impairments, including autism spectrum disorder and depression, were pre-existing and not caused by the accident under the 'but for' test.

Furthermore, the Tribunal preferred the respondent's psychiatric evidence, concluding that the applicant's level of function was compatible with a mild impairment rather than a marked one.

The application was dismissed, and claims for an award and interest were denied.

During a hearing to determine if the applicant was catastrophically impaired, the respondent objected to the applicant's expert witness testifying to matters beyond her original report, specifically a late-served rebuttal report.

The Tribunal ruled that the expert could testify to all relevant matters, including the new report.

The Tribunal found that under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, it has broad discretion to admit relevant evidence, and the probative value of the testimony outweighed any prejudice to the respondent, which could be cured by allowing cross-examination and reply evidence.