Jacqueline Ozor

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits for chiropractic services and a social work assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found the chiropractic treatment plans reasonable and necessary, preferring the evidence of the applicant's specialists over the respondent's general physicians.

The claim for a social work assessment was dismissed due to a lack of supporting evidence.

The Tribunal also granted an award of 5% under s. 10 of Regulation 664, finding that the respondent unreasonably delayed the approval and payment of benefits despite receiving corroborative medical evidence.

The applicants, two sisters from Nigeria, sought judicial review of a Refugee Appeal Division (RAD) decision confirming the refusal of their refugee protection claims.

The applicants alleged fear of forced marriage, female genital mutilation, and persecution based on sexual orientation.

The RAD rejected the claims based on credibility issues arising from significant omissions and inconsistencies in the applicants' evidence.

The Federal Court found the RAD's credibility findings were reasonable, noting the applicants failed to establish the identity and influence of the men they were allegedly forced to marry, and failed to adequately explain inconsistencies regarding their father's actions and the associate applicant's sexual orientation.

The application for judicial review 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 Tribunal first determined that the applicant's claim for a March 2018 treatment plan was statute-barred under s. 56 of the Schedule, as the application was filed beyond the two-year limitation period and the applicant failed to provide evidence to justify an extension under s. 7 of the LAT Act.

On the substantive issue, the Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet his burden of proving that his injuries warranted removal from the MIG on the basis of a pre-existing condition, psychological impairment, or chronic pain.

As the disputed treatment plans exceeded the $3,500 MIG limit, they were not payable.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The respondent raised a preliminary issue that the applicant was barred from proceeding with the claim.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was statute-barred from claiming a non-earner benefit under section 12 of the Schedule because she qualified for an income replacement benefit, having worked at the time of the accident and returned to work shortly after.

The claim for a non-earner benefit was dismissed.

The trial addressed child and spousal support obligations and the mother's right to travel with the children without the father's consent.

The court imputed an annual income of $127,198.00 to the father for support purposes, finding his financial disclosure unreliable and his conduct blameworthy.

Retroactive child support was ordered from January 2016, departing from the presumptive three-year rule due to the father's blameworthy conduct and underpayment.

Prospective child support was set at $3576.00 per month.

The mother was found entitled to compensatory and needs-based spousal support, with a prospective award of $252.00 per month from February 2019.

The mother's claim for retroactive spousal support was denied due to unexplained delay and insufficient evidence.

The court granted the mother permission to travel with the children outside Canada without the father's prior consent, requiring only advance notice and an itinerary, citing the father's limited involvement and travel habits.

The applicants, citizens of Nigeria, sought judicial review of a decision by the Refugee Appeal Division confirming they were not Convention refugees or persons in need of protection.

The applicants claimed a fear of persecution from the husband's family, who demanded spiritual cleansing rituals, including female genital mutilation, for the minor applicants.

The RPD and RAD found the applicants were not credible based on minor inconsistencies and a perceived delay in leaving Nigeria.

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, concluding that the RAD overzealously applied a microscopic analysis of the evidence and failed to reasonably assess the applicants' explanations for the discrepancies and delays.

The applicant sought accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer determined the injuries fell within the Minor Injury Guideline (MIG) and terminated income replacement benefits (IRBs).

The Tribunal found that the applicant sustained a psychological injury (anxiety) as a result of the accident, removing him from the MIG.

However, the applicant failed to prove a substantial inability to perform the essential tasks of his pre-accident employment within 104 weeks, or a complete inability to engage in any employment thereafter.

The claim for IRBs and interest was dismissed.

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

The respondent denied claims for income replacement benefits and chiropractic treatment plans in early 2016.

The applicant commenced an application to dispute the denials nearly three years later.

The Tribunal held that the applicant was barred from proceeding with the claims because the application was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Schedule.

The Tribunal found the respondent's refusals were clear and unequivocal, and declined to exercise its discretion to extend the limitation period under section 7 of the Licence Appeal Tribunal Act.

The applicant sought payment for a non-earner benefit following a motor vehicle accident.

The insurer denied the benefit, arguing the applicant failed to submit a completed disability certificate within the required timeframe under section 36(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

In a preliminary issue hearing, the adjudicator found that the applicant had submitted the certificate, noting the insurer had paid the invoice for its completion and likely misplaced the document.

The adjudicator ruled the applicant was not precluded from claiming the benefit.

The applicant's request for costs was denied as the insurer's actions did not amount to bad faith.

The applicant sought to reopen a previously withdrawn application for statutory accident benefits 14 months after the Tribunal confirmed it was withdrawn.

The respondent argued the applicant was attempting to circumvent the two-year limitation period under section 56 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal found no statutory authority or rule permitting a withdrawn application to be reopened, refreshed, or revived.

The application was dismissed as statute-barred.

The Tribunal declined to award costs to the respondent, finding the applicant's conduct did not significantly prejudice the respondent or abuse the Tribunal's process.