Farid Mahdi

The applicant sought a $35,000 death benefit following the death of his mother in a motor vehicle accident, claiming he was principally dependent on her for financial support.

The Tribunal applied the Miller criteria and found that the applicant, who had an annual income of approximately $18,000, had sufficient means to fund 51% of his financial needs, even considering the local cost of rent.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant was not principally dependent on his mother and dismissed the claims for the death benefit, interest, and an award.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle collision, disputing the insurer's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG based on a concussion, chronic pain, and psychological impairments.

The Tribunal found insufficient medical evidence to support a concussion or chronic pain diagnosis, and preferred the respondent's psychological assessments which found symptom exaggeration over the applicant's assessments.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor.

The applicant's claims for treatment plans outside the MIG limit, a non-earner benefit, and an award for unreasonable delay were all dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

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

Following a case conference, the respondent removed the applicant from the MIG due to a technical failure to respond to a treatment plan within the required time under s. 38(8) of the Schedule, and subsequently approved the disputed benefits.

The Tribunal found that the respondent unreasonably delayed removing the applicant from the MIG and approving the benefits even after discovering the technicality.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay a special award of 15% of the approved benefits under s. 10 of Reg. 664, totaling $13,019.34, and to pay interest on the overdue benefits pursuant to s. 51(4) of the Schedule.

The plaintiff, a landscaping company, moved for an order enforcing an Umpire's decision rendered under section 128 of the Insurance Act regarding the valuation of four vandalized trucks.

The defendant insurer refused to pay the difference between its appraisal and the Umpire's higher valuation.

The defendant raised multiple defences including lack of standing for the lessee, limitation period issues, and alleged settlement with the lessor.

The court granted the plaintiff's motion, finding that the plaintiff had standing as a named insured, that the Umpire's valuation was binding and enforceable, and that the defendant's newly raised defences were procedurally improper as they were not pleaded and raised only at the last minute.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, disputing the respondent's determination that his injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline.

The applicant failed to attend the videoconference hearing.

The Tribunal denied the applicant's representative's motion to adjourn, noting a similar pre-hearing motion had already been denied.

The Tribunal also denied the respondent's motion to dismiss the application as abandoned, opting instead to proceed with the hearing in the applicant's absence pursuant to section 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

As the applicant bore the onus of proof and made no submissions, the Tribunal found he failed to establish entitlement to the disputed benefits and dismissed the application.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed an appeal by S.D.M.O. Industries (Kohler-SDMO) and Kohler Co., who sought to stay proceedings on the basis of lack of jurisdiction or a forum selection clause favoring a French court.

The court held that Ontario had jurisdiction, the forum selection clause was not proven to be valid or applicable, and the motion judge made no reviewable error.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits.

The respondent insurer denied several treatment plans.

The applicant filed an application with the Tribunal more than two years after the denials.

The respondent argued the application was statute-barred.

The Tribunal found that two of the denial letters were invalid because they failed to provide adequate medical reasons, meaning the limitation period was not triggered for those plans.

For the remaining valid denials, the Tribunal exercised its discretion under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act to extend the limitation period, finding that there was merit to the appeal and no prejudice to the respondent.

The applicant was permitted to proceed to a substantive hearing on all disputed treatment plans.

The Applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming psychological injuries that would remove him from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found the psychological report submitted by the Applicant unpersuasive because it relied solely on self-reporting without reviewing medical records that indicated pre-existing psychiatric issues.

Preferring the comprehensive report of the respondent's psychologist, the Tribunal concluded the Applicant sustained only minor injuries.

Consequently, the Applicant remained subject to the $3,500 MIG funding limit and was not entitled to the disputed treatment plans, assessments, or interest.

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

The respondent denied the benefits, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant argued for removal from the MIG due to a pre-existing condition and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's injuries were predominantly minor soft tissue injuries and that she failed to provide compelling medical evidence of a pre-existing condition or psychological impairment warranting removal from the MIG.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plan for chiropractic services was deemed not reasonable and necessary, and claims for an award and interest were dismissed.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming her psychological impairment and chronic pain warranted removal from the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant demonstrated a psychological impairment, removing her from the MIG, and approved two psychological treatment plans as reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claim for chronic pain, finding she did not meet the criteria under the AMA Guides, and denied two chiropractic treatment plans.

The Tribunal also dismissed the applicant's claim for a special award, finding the insurer's conduct in handling the file was not excessive or imprudent.

Interest was awarded on the approved psychological benefits.

The respondent insurer brought a preliminary issue motion to strike the applicant's claim for statutory accident benefits, arguing she was not involved in the subject motor vehicle accident.

The applicant claimed she was inside a restaurant when a vehicle crashed into it, causing her injuries.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence, including contemporaneous photographs of the accident scene and physical injuries consistent with her account, established on a balance of probabilities that she was involved in the accident.

The respondent's motion was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied a chiropractic treatment plan and a mental health assessment on the basis that the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The Tribunal found that the applicant suffered from psychological impairments caused by the accident, removing her from the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the evidence of the applicant's treating family physician over the respondent's assessors.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to pay for the chiropractic treatment plan, the mental health assessment, and applicable interest.

The applicant sought income replacement benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent insurer requested the applicant attend section 44 examinations to assess her eligibility.

The applicant failed to attend, arguing that she had returned to work and attending would cause her to miss work.

The Tribunal found that missing work was not a valid reason to refuse attendance and that the respondent would be prejudiced by a delayed examination.

Consequently, the applicant was barred from proceeding with her claim for income replacement benefits under section 55 of the Schedule.

The applicant sought a medical benefit for physiotherapy in the amount of $1,899.96 following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent denied the treatment plan, arguing the applicant's physical injuries were predominantly minor and the treatment was not reasonable and necessary.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the treatment plan was reasonable and necessary, noting that the applicant reported only short-term relief from previous treatment.

The application was dismissed, and the respondent's claim for costs was also denied.

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

The respondent insurer denied certain treatment plans, arguing the applicant's injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG).

The applicant contended that pre-existing chronic neck pain, psychological impairments, and accident-related chronic pain removed him from the MIG.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's physical injuries were soft tissue in nature and predominantly minor.

The Tribunal also rejected the psychological and chronic pain claims, noting inconsistencies in self-reporting, lack of objective medical evidence, and the applicant's continued high level of functioning, including working and attending the gym.

As the applicant failed to prove his injuries fell outside the MIG and the $3,500 limit was exhausted, the application was dismissed.

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

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

The applicant argued she should be removed from the MIG due to pre-existing conditions, chronic pain syndrome, and a psychological impairment.

The Tribunal found the applicant's evidence insufficient to establish a pre-existing condition that would prevent maximum medical recovery within the MIG.

The Tribunal preferred the respondent's insurer examination reports, concluding the applicant sustained only minor soft tissue injuries.

As the $3,500 MIG limit was exhausted, the disputed treatment plans and interest were denied.