Jane Lo

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits following a motor vehicle accident, claiming catastrophic impairment under Criteria 7 and 8 of the Schedule due to vascular dementia and other impairments.

The respondent denied the benefits, noting the applicant had already reached the non-catastrophic funding limit.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet the burden of proving catastrophic impairment, as the medical evidence did not establish a 55% whole person impairment under Criterion 7 or a marked impairment in three domains under Criterion 8.

Consequently, the claims for additional medical benefits, interest, and a section 10 award were dismissed.

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

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

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

The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychological and chronic pain evidence was outweighed by the respondent's expert assessments and the lack of contemporaneous complaints in the family doctor's clinical notes.

The Tribunal concluded the applicant's impairments were predominantly minor and subject to the MIG limit.

Consequently, the disputed treatment plans, interest, and an award for unreasonable delay were denied.

The applicant was injured in a rear-end motor vehicle accident and sought statutory accident benefits for an in-home assessment and catastrophic impairment assessments.

The insurer denied the benefits.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant failed to meet her burden of proving the treatment plans were reasonable and necessary.

The applicant did not provide sufficient contemporaneous medical evidence, failed to address causation issues related to subsequent accidents, and did not submit the disputed catastrophic impairment assessment plan or explain the disputed amounts.

The application was dismissed, and claims for interest and an award were consequently denied.

The applicant sought a determination of catastrophic impairment under Criterion 8 (mental and behavioural disorders) and entitlement to various medical and rehabilitation benefits following a motor vehicle accident.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not sustain a catastrophic impairment, placing limited weight on her experts due to her inconsistent self-reporting and failure to account for intervening events.

The Tribunal denied the disputed treatment plans for occupational therapy, physiotherapy, psychological services, and bathroom renovations, finding them not reasonable and necessary.

However, the Tribunal granted the cost of prescribed cannabis oil, noting that a treatment plan was not required for expenses under $250, and ordered a 35% award against the respondent for unreasonably withholding payment for the cannabis oil.

The applicant sought statutory accident benefits after being injured when thrown from an all-terrain vehicle (ATV).

The respondent denied benefits on the basis that the incident was not an 'accident' under section 3 of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The Tribunal applied the Grummett test and found that the ATV was not an automobile in common parlance, was not defined as an automobile in an insurance policy, and did not fall within an enlarged definition of automobile under any relevant statute because the applicant failed to prove the incident occurred on a roadway where insurance would be required.

The application was dismissed.

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

The insurer raised several preliminary issues.

The Tribunal found the applicant was barred from proceeding with disputes over four treatment plans due to her failure to attend scheduled insurer examinations, but was not barred regarding a fifth plan.

The Tribunal also held that the claim for attendant care benefits was not premature, as the insurer's failure to agree to pay constituted a dispute.

Finally, the Tribunal found the applicant was time-barred from disputing the denial of income replacement benefits and was precluded from claiming them for the period prior to submitting a disability certificate.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing and timetable under Rule 48.14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, while the defendants sought to have the action dismissed for delay.

The court applied the two-part test from Khan v. Sun Life, requiring the plaintiff to show an acceptable explanation for the delay and that the defendants would suffer no non-compensable prejudice.

The court found the plaintiff's explanations for the delay, which included changing counsel and preparing summary judgment materials, to be credible.

Furthermore, the court determined the defendants would not suffer non-compensable prejudice, as a key witness had been located.

The court ordered the action to continue and directed the parties to agree on a timetable.

The moving defendants sought summary judgment dismissing claims arising from a motor vehicle collision allegedly caused by a boulder connected to landscaping work at neighbouring residential properties.

The plaintiff pursued liability based on private nuisance, public nuisance, and the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher after conceding other pleaded claims.

The court held that private nuisance does not apply to personal injury or damage to personal property, and that the alleged temporary presence of the boulder on the roadway did not satisfy the public interest element required for public nuisance.

The court further found that ordinary residential landscaping work is not a non-natural use of land for purposes of the Rylands v. Fletcher rule.

Summary judgment was granted and the claims against the moving defendants were dismissed.

The landlord appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the tenant $5,500 and costs.

The dispute centered on whether the landlord could require the tenant to replace its sign due to a change in the plaza's sign policy, despite a lease provision expressly approving the existing sign.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's interpretation that the approval lasted for the duration of the lease and found no error in the costs award.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant contractor appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent damages for a defective driveway installation.

The appellant argued the trial judge improperly bifurcated the trial and awarded an amount exceeding the claim.

The Divisional Court found the trial judge erred in awarding judgment in excess of the amended claim of $4,381.65.

However, the court declined to order a re-hearing, finding the respondent had established liability and damages up to the claimed amount.

The appeal was allowed to reduce the judgment to $4,381.65.