Dr. Watson

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought a determination of catastrophic impairment due to a mild traumatic brain injury and psychological impairments.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 6 (Glasgow Outcome Scale) because she maintained some independence and employment.

However, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant sustained a marked impairment in adaptation under Criterion 8 due to her somatic symptom disorder and cognitive challenges.

The Tribunal awarded attendant care benefits of $1,561.89 per month, various treatment plans, and interest, but denied the claim for 24/7 attendant care and a special award under Regulation 664.

The applicant sought various statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, having previously been deemed to have sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The respondent argued the applicant was statute-barred from disputing the denial of attendant care benefits because he failed to do so within the two-year limitation period.

Applying the discoverability principles from Tomec, the Tribunal found the limitation period did not apply because the applicant could not have successfully disputed the denial until he had evidence of his catastrophic impairment.

The Tribunal partially granted the applicant's claims for treatment plans, including physiotherapy, psychological treatment, and catastrophic assessments, while denying mileage expenses for service providers.

The Tribunal also awarded attendant care benefits at reduced monthly amounts for specific periods, finding the applicant did not require 24/7 supervision.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits from her insurer, Wawanesa.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment due to marked impairments in adaptation and concentration, persistence, and pace, stemming from somatic symptom disorder and major depressive disorder.

The Tribunal also found the applicant entitled to both pre-104 and post-104 income replacement benefits, as her physical and psychological impairments prevented her from working as a personal support worker or in any suitable employment.

Several treatment plans were deemed payable because Wawanesa failed to provide proper medical and other reasons for denial in its notices, violating s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

Finally, the Tribunal ordered a 30% special award under Regulation 664, finding that Wawanesa unreasonably withheld benefits by blindly following its assessors' reports without considering the totality of the medical evidence or continuously adjusting the file.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits, including a non-earner benefit (NEB) and funding for occupational therapy and trauma assessments.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Tribunal found the applicant was not entitled to the NEB or the occupational therapy assessment, as he failed to prove a complete inability to carry on a normal life and his functional abilities appeared unchanged from his pre-accident baseline.

However, the Tribunal granted the $750 trauma assessment, finding it reasonable and necessary given the applicant's severe pre-existing psychological vulnerabilities and the dramatic nature of the accident.

Claims for an award under O. Reg. 664 were dismissed.

The respondent insurer requested a reconsideration of a Tribunal decision which found that the applicant sustained a catastrophic impairment and was entitled to a Non-Earner Benefit (NEB).

The respondent argued the Tribunal made significant errors of fact and law regarding the Whole Person Impairment (WPI) percentages assigned for medication use, sleep disorder, occipital neuralgia, and mental and behavioural disorders, as well as in applying the legal test for the NEB.

The Adjudicator found that while the Tribunal erred in assigning a 3% WPI for medication use, deducting this amount still left the applicant meeting the catastrophic impairment threshold.

The Adjudicator dismissed the remaining arguments, finding no significant errors of law or fact in the Tribunal's assessment of the medical evidence or its application of the Heath test for the NEB.

The request for reconsideration was dismissed.

The applicant was struck by a vehicle while riding his bicycle and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment based on mental and behavioural disorders, specifically in the sphere of Adaptation.

The Tribunal weighed competing expert evidence, noting the applicant's upward trajectory in employment and poor validity testing results.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's occupational therapy assessment, finding the simulated work tasks unrealistic compared to his actual sustained employment.

Preferring the respondent's psychiatric evidence, the Tribunal found the applicant's impairments did not rise to the level of a marked impairment and dismissed the application.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and applied for a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to non-earner benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a 55% whole person impairment due to a combination of physical and psychological impairments, meeting the threshold for catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal also found that the applicant suffered a complete inability to carry on a normal life, entitling him to non-earner benefits.

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, who suffered a psychiatric impairment following a motor vehicle accident, sought funding for a $25,425 Catastrophic Impairment Assessment.

The insurer denied the claim, arguing the psychiatric condition was not caused by the accident and relying on multiple insurer examinations.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that while causation was questionable, it was reasonable and necessary for the applicant to explore the possibility of catastrophic impairment using his own assessors.

The Tribunal capped the funding at $12,200 pursuant to the Schedule's limits.

Claims for a special award and costs were dismissed.

The Crown appealed a sentencing judge's decision dismissing its application to designate the respondent as a dangerous offender under section 753(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The sentencing judge instead designated the respondent as a long-term offender and imposed a determinate sentence of two years less one day, followed by a five-year long-term supervision order.

The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge's decision, finding that there was sufficient evidence of treatability and a reasonable possibility of eventual control of the respondent's risk in the community through a graduated release plan involving psychiatric treatment and community supervision.