Dr. Unsal

The applicant, a bus driver, was injured in a motor vehicle accident when a transport truck collided with her bus.

She applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment under the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The central issue was whether her injuries resulted in a 55% or more Whole Person Impairment (WPI) in accordance with the AMA Guides.

The adjudicator evaluated competing expert medical reports regarding the applicant's mental/behavioural disorders, lower extremity impairments, facial disfigurement, spinal issues, sleep disorder, and chronic pain.

After weighing the evidence and assigning WPI percentages for each category, the adjudicator concluded that the applicant sustained a 54% WPI.

Applying the rounding principles permitted by the AMA Guides, this met the 55% threshold.

The Tribunal declared the applicant catastrophically impaired.

The Applicant was severely injured in a motorcycle accident and applied for statutory accident benefits.

The Insurer raised a preliminary issue that the Applicant was precluded from claiming benefits because he was driving without valid insurance.

The Arbitrator found that the Applicant, who had purchased what he believed to be a legitimate policy from a third party, reasonably believed he was insured.

On the substantive issues, the Arbitrator awarded pre-104 income replacement benefits, finding the Applicant suffered a substantial inability to perform his pre-accident employment tasks due to cognitive and physical impairments.

However, the claim for post-104 income replacement benefits was dismissed as the Applicant had returned to work and earned more than his pre-accident income.

The Arbitrator also awarded attendant care benefits, finding the Applicant's family members sustained an economic loss, and granted ongoing housekeeping and home maintenance benefits.

Following convictions for criminal harassment and breaches of probation, the Crown sought a dangerous offender designation under s. 753(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court reviewed the offender’s extensive criminal history including numerous sexual offences, violent offences, and repeated breaches of court orders, as well as psychiatric assessments diagnosing schizophrenia, traumatic brain injury, paraphilias, and substance abuse disorders.

Expert evidence established a high risk of future sexual violence and persistent failure to restrain behaviour.

The court concluded the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation were met under both s. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii).

The offender failed to establish that community management would adequately protect the public, and the court imposed a penitentiary sentence followed by long‑term supervision.