Dr. Yaroshevsky

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2018 motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal first held that the applicant was statute-barred from disputing the denial of 14 treatment plans because he failed to apply within the two-year limitation period and did not establish grounds for an extension under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

On the substantive issues, the Tribunal found the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment under Criterion 7 (falling short of the 55% whole person impairment threshold) or Criterion 8 (failing to establish marked impairments in three spheres of functioning).

The Tribunal also dismissed the claims for the remaining treatment plans, finding the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary onus to prove they were reasonable and necessary.

Claims for interest and an award were consequently dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination that he sustained a catastrophic impairment as a result of a motor vehicle accident, along with entitlement to various attendant care benefits and treatment plans.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal evaluated the applicant's impairments under Criterion 7 (Whole Person Impairment) and Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders).

The Tribunal rejected several of the applicant's physical impairment ratings due to a lack of causal evidence and methodological flaws, concluding the applicant did not meet the 55% WPI threshold.

Under Criterion 8, the Tribunal found the applicant had only mild impairments in activities of daily living and social functioning, failing to meet the threshold of three marked or one extreme impairment.

As the applicant was not catastrophically impaired and had exhausted his non-CAT limits, the claims for attendant care and treatment plans were dismissed.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment and entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the applicant catastrophically impaired under Criterion 8 of the Schedule, concluding he suffered marked impairments in social functioning, concentration, persistence and pace, and adaptation due to a mental and behavioural disorder.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's psychiatrist over the respondent's assessor, who failed to attend the hearing.

The Tribunal approved the majority of the disputed treatment plans, including occupational therapy, chiropractic services, physiotherapy, and a catastrophic assessment, but denied a pharmacotherapy plan for medical cannabis as the requested amount exceeded the applicant's stated needs.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment based on mental and behavioural impairments.

The adjudicator first determined that the applicant was statute-barred from claiming income replacement benefits because they failed to submit a Disability Certificate (OCF-3) within 104 weeks of the accident.

On the issue of catastrophic impairment, the adjudicator preferred the evidence of the respondent's psychiatric expert, finding that the applicant's functional impairments were related to a well-documented, long-standing psychiatric history rather than the subject accident.

The adjudicator also dismissed the applicant's claims for unapproved portions of psychological and chiropractic treatment plans, as well as a catastrophic assessment, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming she sustained a catastrophic impairment and was entitled to post-104 income replacement benefits, attendant care, and various medical benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application.

The Tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's key expert psychiatrist, who recanted his findings during cross-examination when confronted with evidence of the applicant's actual functional capabilities, including international travel and childcare.

Consequently, the applicant failed to prove she met the criteria for catastrophic impairment or that she suffered a complete inability to engage in suitable employment.

As the non-catastrophic benefit limits were exhausted, all claims were dismissed.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a 2019 motor vehicle accident, claiming he sustained a catastrophic impairment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal assessed the applicant's impairments under criteria 7 and 8 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the applicant's whole person impairment rating was 46%, falling short of the 55% threshold required under criterion 7.

Under criterion 8, the Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim of a marked impairment in social functioning, finding his pre-accident history contradicted the expert's opinion.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claims for the cost of a catastrophic determination assessment, an award for unreasonable delay, and interest, as the applicant failed to meet his evidentiary onus.

The applicant sought an income replacement benefit (IRB) following a motor vehicle accident, claiming physical and psychological impairments prevented him from working as a carpenter and security guard.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal dismissed the application, finding insufficient medical evidence to establish a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employments.

The Tribunal gave little weight to the applicant's experts because they were not informed of his second job as a security guard and relied on incomplete documentation.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the respondent's assessors and noted surveillance and employment records contradicted the applicant's testimony.

Claims for a special award and interest were also dismissed.

The applicant, a former bus driver, sought judicial review of a Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal decision denying him benefits for traumatic mental stress.

The Tribunal had found that the applicant's psychological condition was primarily related to personal issues and a non-compensable employer investigation (the 'Apple incident'), rather than earlier workplace assaults.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, holding that the Tribunal's decisions to deny benefits and refuse reconsideration were reasonable, and that the Tribunal provided adequate reasons and appropriately weighed the medical evidence.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a protection application seeking a finding that two young children (D.L., age 3, and A.L., age 2) were in need of protection and should be made Crown wards for adoption purposes.

The children had been in care since May 2014.

The parents opposed the application, seeking dismissal and return of the children, or alternatively, return under a supervision order.

The court found that the children were in need of protection pursuant to section 37(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act due to: (1) missed critical medical appointments for a child with severe developmental disabilities; (2) exposure to domestic violence between the parents; (3) the mother's inability to protect the children from the father's assaults; (4) both parents' dismissive attitudes toward the Canadian medical system; and (5) the father's demonstrated pattern of breaching court orders and his hostile, uncooperative attitude toward medical professionals.

The court rejected both a supervision order with both parents and a supervision order with the mother alone, finding that neither arrangement would adequately protect the children given their complex medical needs and the parents' lack of insight and cooperation.

The court made an order for Crown wardship with no access to the parents.