Valda Lopo

The applicant sought a determination that she sustained a catastrophic impairment under Criteria 4 and 8 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule following a motor vehicle accident, as well as entitlement to psychological services.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet Criterion 4 because there were no positive findings of a traumatic brain injury on recognized diagnostic imaging.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant did not meet Criterion 8, as the evidence demonstrated she had been working part-time as a personal support worker, which was inconsistent with a Class 5 extreme impairment in work functioning.

The claim for psychological services was dismissed as not reasonable and necessary.

The respondent's request for costs was also dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2013 motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans and assessments on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant applied to the Licence Appeal Tribunal, arguing that physical, psychological, and chronic pain impairments warranted removal from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries, relying on the insurer's medical examinations.

The Tribunal also rejected the applicant's psychological claims, preferring the insurer's psychological assessment which suggested the applicant was feigning symptoms.

Finally, the Tribunal found the applicant's chronic pain was related to a subsequent workplace injury rather than the accident.

The application was dismissed.

This protection application concerned three children whose mother was murdered.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the children were in need of protection and final custody to their maternal aunt, with whom they had resided since their mother's death.

The respondent father (MH) of two of the children sought custody of his daughters.

The court found the children in need of protection due to physical harm (dental neglect), risk of physical harm (neglect of immunizations, exposure to domestic violence), risk of emotional harm (domestic violence, housing instability, risk of removal from long-term caregiver), and inadequate provision for care after the mother's death.

The court dismissed the father's bid for custody, finding his plan not viable and his credibility lacking, and granted final custody of all three children to the maternal aunt, emphasizing the children's best interests, continuity of care, and the aunt's demonstrated ability to meet their needs.

This decision addresses a temporary motion and cross-motion concerning decision-making responsibility, parenting arrangements, child support, and spousal support.

The court granted the father sole decision-making authority and primary care of both children, maintaining the mother's limited parenting time with the younger child and no contact with the older child due to a documented history of abuse and the older child's expressed fear.

Income was imputed to both parents, and the mother was ordered to pay child support, while the father was ordered to pay spousal support at the lower end of the advisory guidelines, considering his significant section 7 expenses.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision that denied his claim for a psychological Treatment and Assessment Plan costing $3,588.18 following a motor vehicle accident.

The applicant argued the Tribunal made several errors of fact and law, including mischaracterizing the plan as an assessment rather than treatment, improperly weighing medical evidence from various doctors, and failing to consider the remedial nature of the Schedule.

The Executive Chair dismissed the request, finding that the Tribunal's underlying conclusion that the applicant did not suffer from a psychological condition requiring the claimed expense applied equally to both assessment and treatment.

The Chair also found no error in the Tribunal's weighing of the medical and affidavit evidence, nor any breach of procedural fairness.