Dr. Shafik Dharamshi

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit and funding for catastrophic impairment assessments following a 2011 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the non-earner benefit in 2013.

The applicant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal more than two years after the limitation period expired, while simultaneously pursuing arbitration at the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

The Tribunal declined to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act, finding no bona fide intention to appeal to the Tribunal within the time limit, an unexplained lengthy delay, prejudice to the respondent, and a lack of merit due to surveillance evidence contradicting the applicant's claimed impairments.

The Tribunal also denied funding for the catastrophic impairment assessments, finding no reasonable basis or objective evidence to suggest the applicant might meet the catastrophic impairment threshold.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought medical benefits for physiotherapy, massage therapy, and a psychological assessment.

The respondent denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline and the $3,500 limit had been reached.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor and that she failed to establish a pre-existing medical condition that would prevent maximal recovery under the Guideline.

The application for benefits and an award for unreasonable delay was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's denial of non-earner benefits and four treatment plans.

The adjudicator found that the applicant's claim for non-earner benefits was time-barred under section 56(1) of the Schedule, as the application was filed more than five years after the respondent's clear refusal to pay.

Regarding the treatment plans, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant failed to prove his physical or psychological injuries fell outside the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator placed little weight on the applicant's psychological assessment conducted nearly five years post-accident, noting a lack of contemporaneous complaints to his family physician.

As the applicant had exhausted the $3,500 MIG cap, the disputed treatment plans were denied.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.