Stacey Baboulas

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment due to psychological disorders.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not catastrophically impaired, as she sustained only moderate impairments in concentration, persistence, and pace, and social functioning.

However, applying the Sabadash causation test, the Tribunal found the applicant's impairments were caused by the 2018 accident, despite being aggravated by a subsequent 2020 accident involving the death of her son.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits of $2,327.87 per month, along with specific treatment plans for occupational therapy and a rehabilitation support worker.

Claims for housekeeping benefits, a second occupational therapy plan, and a special award were dismissed.

This case involves two consolidated applications concerning the estate of Veronica Bishop.

Carolyn Mae Reeves sought interpretation of the will regarding executor appointments and asset vesting, and an accounting from Anne Marie Veronica Inglis, a de facto executor.

Margaret Bishop, the deceased's daughter, sought dependant's relief, an accounting, and the removal of Anne Marie as executor.

The court determined that Anne Marie and Carolyn are the current executors.

It clarified that non-residence assets vested at the deceased's death, while residence proceeds vested upon sale.

The court ordered Anne Marie to provide a formal accounting.

Margaret was found to be a dependant and awarded $725,000 from her trust, inclusive of her share of the residue and dependant's support, subject to Anne Marie's proven expenses.

The decision on Anne Marie's removal as executor was adjourned pending the accounting.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits, cost of examinations, interest, and an award following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, specifically a Class 4 Marked impairment in the domain of Activities of Daily Living due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits at $507.03 per month for feeding, along with the costs of an occupational therapy situational assessment and an in-home attendant care assessment.

Claims for a triage assessment, an award under Regulation 664, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to attendant care benefits and cost of examinations following a 2007 motor vehicle accident.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8, specifically a Class 4 Marked impairment in the domain of Activities of Daily Living due to chronic pain and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits at $507.03 per month retroactively to October 2009, along with interest.

The applicant was also awarded the costs of specific occupational therapy and attendant care assessments.

Claims for a triage assessment, a Regulation 664 award, and costs were dismissed.

The applicant was rear-ended in a motor vehicle accident and subsequently applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment due to mental and behavioural disorders.

The Tribunal applied the 'but for' test for causation and found that the accident caused the applicant's psychological impairments.

Preferring the evidence of the applicant's psychologist over the respondent's psychiatrist, the Tribunal concluded the applicant suffered a marked impairment (Class 4) in three of four functional domains (Activities of Daily Living, Concentration, Persistence and Pace, and Adaptation).

The applicant was deemed catastrophically impaired.

However, claims for specific medical and rehabilitation benefits were dismissed as the applicant failed to provide the disputed treatment plans or prove they were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her injuries were catastrophic.

The arbitrator found the applicant lacked credibility, noting she had returned to work shortly after the accident, retrained for a more physically demanding job, and was observed on surveillance performing activities she claimed she could not do.

The arbitrator preferred the insurer's expert evidence over the applicant's, concluding the applicant failed to prove her injuries were catastrophic or that the claimed attendant care and medical benefits were reasonable, necessary, and directly caused by the accident.

All claims were dismissed.