Sasha Stewart

The applicant sought housekeeping and home maintenance (HH) benefits and a special award following a catastrophic motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's traumatic brain injury and physical impairments resulted in a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident HH tasks, rejecting the insurer's reliance on surveillance footage and an Examination Under Oath.

However, the Tribunal denied payment of the HH benefits because the applicant failed to prove the expenses were incurred under section 3(7)(e) of the Schedule.

The claim for a section 10 award was dismissed as the insurer's conduct was not excessive or imprudent.

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 sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to a mental or behavioural disorder.

The arbitrator dismissed the claims for post-104 week attendant care, housekeeping, and caregiver benefits, finding that the applicant's presentation was characterized by significant symptom fabrication, exaggeration, and malingering.

The arbitrator concluded that the applicant's cognitive and functional abilities significantly exceeded her presentation, undermining her credibility.

However, the arbitrator awarded pre-104 week housekeeping benefits and the cost of certain assistive devices, while dismissing claims for other treatments, assessments, and a special award.