Dr. Shaul

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits, including non-earner benefits and medical benefits for psychological services, following a minor rear-end motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's independent medical examination reports over the applicant's expert reports, noting that the applicant's experts relied heavily on self-reporting which was contradicted by the applicant's own prior testimony and employment records indicating he was laid off due to a shortage of work rather than disability.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a rear-end motor vehicle collision.

The insurer denied various benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were minor and had resolved, as evidenced by normal imaging and his return to work.

The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim of chronic pain syndrome, finding he did not meet the AMA Guides criteria.

Claims for Income Replacement Benefits, attendant care, and various treatment plans were dismissed because the applicant failed to prove impairments beyond the MIG or an inability to work.

The Tribunal also dismissed claims for an award under O. Reg. 664, noting that technical deficiencies in the insurer's notices do not automatically entitle an applicant to benefits.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for physiotherapy and a chronic pain assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the treatment plans, citing a gap in treatment and an insurer's examination concluding the shoulder injury was not causally linked to the accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary, noting the applicant's ongoing pain and the lack of explanation from the insurer's assessor regarding causation.

The Tribunal ordered the insurer to pay for the physiotherapy and chronic pain assessment with interest, but denied the applicant's request for a bad faith award.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended that chronic pain syndrome, psychological impairments, jaw injury, and post-traumatic headaches removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including an orthopaedic report diagnosing chronic pain syndrome, lacked objective medical findings and corroboration.

Conversely, the Tribunal accepted the respondent's independent medical examinations, which concluded the injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue sprains and strains.

The Tribunal held the applicant sustained predominantly minor injuries and dismissed the claims for treatment plans, cost of examinations, and an award for delayed payments.

The applicant's request for costs was also denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued she suffered from psychological impairments and chronic pain that removed her from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's psychologist over the applicant's psychologist, finding the applicant did not suffer from a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence of chronic pain caused by the accident.

The application was dismissed as the injuries fell within the MIG.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied the benefits on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued that pre-existing migraines and wrist pain, as well as psychological impairments, removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence that his pre-existing conditions would prevent maximal recovery under the MIG limits.

Furthermore, the applicant was precluded from relying on his psychological assessment to escape the MIG because he failed to attend the scheduled section 44 insurer's examinations.

The application for medical benefits, interest, and a special award was dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the claims for chiropractic services and a psychological assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that her physical injuries, including a right knee condition, or her alleged psychological impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the claims for additional medical benefits and interest were dismissed.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle as a pedestrian and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent denied the claims, arguing the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The adjudicator found that the applicant's physical injuries were minor and that her pre-existing depression and anxiety did not prevent her from achieving maximum medical recovery within the MIG.

The adjudicator approved the physical treatment plans up to the $3,500 MIG limit but denied the psychological treatment and assessment plans.

Claims for an award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied funding for physiotherapy and psychological treatment plans on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and the $3,500 funding limit had been exhausted.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not suffer from a psychological impairment or chronic pain syndrome as a result of the accident that would warrant removal from the MIG.

The applicant's appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident while a passenger on a motorcycle, sought a medical benefit of $2,200 for a psychological assessment.

The respondent insurer denied the claim.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the assessment was reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's psychological assessor, who found only mild symptoms and no identifiable impairment, over the applicant's evidence, which included an inappropriate diagnosis of acute stress disorder 18 months post-accident.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received income replacement benefits for 104 weeks.

The insurer terminated the benefits, and the applicant sought reinstatement, arguing she suffered a complete inability to engage in any employment for which she was reasonably suited by education, training, or experience due to psychological and physical impairments.

The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding the applicant's self-reports and medical evidence insufficient to meet the post-104 week test, and preferred the respondent's objective functional and vocational assessments which identified suitable sedentary occupations.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, including income replacement benefits, attendant care benefits, and various medical benefits.

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish entitlement to income replacement benefits, as he returned to work full-time and his business suffered no economic loss.

Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and that he failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that he suffered from psychological impairments, chronic pain syndrome, or post-concussion syndrome that would remove him from the MIG.

Consequently, the application for benefits was denied.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her physical and psychological impairments removed her from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and entitled her to an income replacement benefit (IRB).

The adjudicator found that the applicant failed to provide compelling evidence of a pre-existing condition, chronic pain, or severe psychological impairment that would take her injuries outside the MIG.

Furthermore, relying on the respondent's medical assessments, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant did not suffer a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of her pre-accident employment.

The application for medical benefits beyond the MIG cap and for an IRB was dismissed.

The moving party sought an order validating late service of a statement of claim and extending time for service after the claim was served more than two years after issuance and beyond the six‑month service period under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court considered the factors governing extensions of time and validation of service, including length of delay, explanation for delay, and prejudice to the responding party.

The claim had been issued after the expiry of the limitation period and the moving party failed to provide a coherent explanation for the delay or evidence supporting discoverability.

The court found extensive and unexplained delays attributable to counsel, inadequate efforts to locate and serve the defendant, and significant prejudice to the defence including loss of opportunities for surveillance, medical assessments, and vocational evaluation.

The motion to validate service and extend time was dismissed.